Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-02185/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-02185-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 30:181 Environment: Review of Agency Action

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEVIL’S GARDEN PRESERVATION 

GROUP, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

U.S. FOREST SERVICE, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:17–cv–2185-MCE–KJN (PS)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL

(ECF No. 90)

On February 6, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel, requesting Defendants be 

ordered to respond to thirteen requests for production of documents, as per the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure and as allowed by the district judge’s scheduling order. (See ECF No. 90, citing 

Rule 37 and ECF No. 83.) Defendants opposed, arguing (among other things) that because the 

issues raised in this case concern a decision by a federal agency, no discovery is allowed, as the 

procedures are governed by the Administrative Procedures Act. 5 U.S.C. § 706(1). The matter 

was set for a March 4, 2020 hearing before the undersigned. (ECF No. 99.)

On February 27, 2020, the parties filed their joint statement regarding this dispute. (ECF 

No. 100.) Therein, Plaintiffs argued that certain exceptions to the ‘no-discovery’ rule applied. 

See Friends of the Clearwater v. Dombeck, 222 F.3d 552, 560 (9th Cir. 2000) (“In [certain] cases, 

review is not limited to the record as it existed at any single point in time, because there is no 

final agency action to demarcate the limits of the record.”); see also City of Santa Clarita v. U.S. 

Case 2:17-cv-02185-MCE-KJN Document 102 Filed 03/03/20 Page 1 of 2
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

2

Dep't of Interior, 2005 WL 2972987, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2005) (“[T]he Ninth Circuit has 

allowed extra-record review or limited discovery [in APA cases] in only four narrow 

circumstances: (1) if necessary to determine whether the agency has considered all relevant 

factors and has explained its decision; (2) when it appears that the agency has relied on 

documents or materials not included in the administrative record; (3) when necessary to explain 

technical terms or complex subject matter involved in the agency action; or (4) when there is a 

strong showing of bad faith or improper behavior by the agency.”). Defendants opposed. 

Pending at the same time as this discovery dispute was Defendants’ motion to modify the 

scheduling order, submitted to the assigned district judge on January 21, 2020. (ECF No. 88.) 

Therein, Defendants argued that the standard scheduling order for civil cases was inappropriate 

because this is an APA review case, and thus an expedited schedule was more appropriate. (Id.) 

Plaintiffs opposed a change in the schedule, citing (among other things) the exceptions to the 

APA ‘no discovery’ rule. See Dombeck, 222 F.3d at 560.

On March 2, the district judge granted Defendant’s motion to modify the schedule. (ECF 

No. 101.) Therein, the court stated that this action “is governed by the APA, which limits the 

scope of the court’s review to the administrative record available to the agency at the time of the 

challenged decision, unless certain exceptions apply.” (Id. at p. 2.) The court found Defendants’ 

proposed schedule “follows the standard procedure in APA cases and Plaintiffs have not 

presented any arguments persuading the Court to deviate from this procedure.” (Id.) The court 

ordered Defendants to supplement the administrative record within 90 days, and granted Plaintiffs 

leave to supplement the record thirty days after; the court also set a briefing schedule for 

summary judgment on the record. (Id.) Thus, the district judge’s order moots Plaintiff’s motion 

to compel discovery, as Plaintiff must follow the district judge’s procedures. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:

1. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel (ECF No. 90) is DENIED; and

2. The March 4, 2020 hearing is VACATED.

Dated: March 3, 2020

Case 2:17-cv-02185-MCE-KJN Document 102 Filed 03/03/20 Page 2 of 2