Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01167/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01167-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 05:551 Administrative Procedure Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

QUECHAN TRIBE OF THE FORT YUMA

INDIAN RESERVATION,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12cv1167-GPC(PCL)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTINTERVENOR OCOTILLO’S

MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE

RECORD

[Dkt. No. 78.]

vs.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE

INTERIOR, et al.,

 Federal Defendants and

OCOTILLO EXPRESS LLC, 

 Defendant-Intervenor.

On September 19, 2012, Defendant-Intervenor Ocotillo filed a motion to supplement the

administrative record. (Dkt. No. 78.) On October 15, 2012, Federal Defendants filed an opposition. 

(Dkt. No. 93.) Ocotillo filed a reply on October 22, 2012. (Dkt No. 96.) Based on the reasoning

below, the Court DENIES Defendant-Intervenor’s motion to supplement the record. 

Background

Defendant-Intervenor Ocotillo filed a motion to supplement the administrative record with two

letters (“Letters”) from the federal AdvisoryCouncil on Historic Preservation (“ACHP”) to two Indian

Tribes. (Dkt. No. 78-2, Brandt-Erichsen Decl., Exs. 1, 2.) According to the first amended complaint,

- 1 - [12cv1167-GPC(PCL)]

Case 3:12-cv-01167-GPC-PCL Document 104 Filed 11/14/12 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiff challenges the Bureau of Land Management’s (“BLM”) compliance with Section 106 of the

National Historic Preservation Act (“NHPA”). TheACHP, a federal agencycharged byCongress with

administering and implementing the NHPA accepted BLM’s invitation to participate in developing

the Memorandum of Agreement (“MOA”) between the parties to address the potential for adverse

effects on cultural properties as defined by the NHPA. (Dkt. No. 73, Administrative Record (“AR”)

at 0001650, 0028348.) During the consultative process regarding the MOA, Plaintiff Quechan and

another Indian tribe, Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians (“Viejas”) expressed concerns regarding

BLM’s compliance with Section 106. (Id. at 0024891-0024896; 0024973-0024975; 0023984-

0023990.) On April 24, 2012, the ACHP requested that the BLM address these concerns. (Id. at

0023821-0023931.) On May 4, 2012, BLM provided a detailed response to each of ACHP’s inquiry. 

(Id. at 0023821-0023834.) As a result, ACHP signed the MOA on May 8, 2012. (Id. at 0023944.)

On June 7, 2012, the ACHP sent Letters to Quechan and Viejas informing the tribes it had

signed the MOA and provided an explanation for signing the MOA. Since the Federal Defendants

filed the certified administrative record on September 7, 2012, these letters were not included in the

administrative record. (Dkt. No. 73.)

Discussion

Ocotillo argues that the Letters should be admitted under the exception to the general rule that

judicial review is limited to the administrative record because the Letters explain the ACHP’s reasons

for signing the MOA. Federal Defendants object arguing that the Court’s review is limited to the

administrative record and the Letters are post-decisional materials that should be rejected. 

Generally, judicial review of an agency action is limited to a review of the administrative

record in existence at the time of the agency’s decision. Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470

U.S. 729, 743-44 (1985); Friends of the Clearwater v. Dombeck, 222 F.3d 552, 560 (9th Cir. 2000). 

“[T]he focal point of judicial review should be the administrative record already in existence, not some

new record made initially in the reviewing court.” Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138, 142 (1973). Parties

may not use “post-decision information as a new rationalization either for sustaining or attacking the

Agency’s decision.” Ctr. For Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 450 F.3d 930, 942

(9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). 

- 2 - [12cv1167-GPC(PCL)]

Case 3:12-cv-01167-GPC-PCL Document 104 Filed 11/14/12 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The Ninth Circuit recognizes certain narrow exceptions to this general rule. “In limited

circumstances, district courts are permitted to admit extra-record evidence: (1) if admission is

necessary to determine ‘whether the agency has considered all relevant factors and has explained its

decision,’ (2) if ‘the agency has relied on documents not in the record,’ (3) ‘when supplementing the

record is necessary to explain technical terms or complex subject matter,’ or (4) ‘when plaintiffs make

a showing of agency bad faith.’” Lands Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d 1019, 1030 (9th Cir. 2005)

(quotation omitted). “Though widely accepted, these exception are narrowly construed and applied.” 

Id. 

The Ninth Circuit “normally refuse[s] to consider evidence that was not before the agency

because ‘it inevitably leads the reviewing court to substitute its judgment for that of the agency.’” Ctr.

for Biological Diversity, 450 F.3d at 943. “ When an agency’s inquiry is inadequate, we generally

‘remand the matter to the agency for further consideration.” Id.

A court may consider evidence outside the administrative record as necessary to explain

agency action. Asarco, Inc. v. United States E.P.A., 616 F.2d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 1980). When there

is “such a failure to explain administrative action as to frustrate effective judicial review,” the court

may “obtain from the agency, either through affidavits or testimony, such additional explanations of

the reasons for the agency decision as may prove necessary.” Public Power Council v. Johnson, 674

F.2d 791, 793–94 (9th Cir. 1982) (citation omitted). The district court has discretion as to whether to

admit extra-record evidence. Friends of the Payette v. Horseshoe Bend Hydroelectric Co., 988 F.2d

989, 997 (9th Cir. 1993). 

Based on the review of the content of the Letters, the Court concludes they are not helpful in

determining whether the agency has considered all relevant factors. The Court notes that the facts and

documents referenced in the Letters are already in the administrative record. In particular, the letter

from the BLM to ACHP provides a detailed response to the Tribes’ concerns which are summarily

addressed in the Letters. (See AR at 0023821-0023834.) The Letters “might have supplied a fuller

record, but otherwise does not address issues not already there.” See Hintz, 800 F.2d at 829. 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant-Intervenor’s motion to supplement the record. 

 / / / /

- 3 - [12cv1167-GPC(PCL)]

Case 3:12-cv-01167-GPC-PCL Document 104 Filed 11/14/12 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Conclusion

Based on the above, the Court DENIES Defendant-Intervenor’s motion to supplement the

record. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 14, 2012

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 4 - [12cv1167-GPC(PCL)]

Case 3:12-cv-01167-GPC-PCL Document 104 Filed 11/14/12 Page 4 of 4