Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-00750/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-00750-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 899
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision
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 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JEFFREY GEARHART, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UNITED STATES DEPT. OF EDUC., ET AL., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 19-cv-00750-YGR 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR DISCOVERY AND SUPPLEMENTATION 

OF RECORD WITHOUT PREJUDICE;

REVISING SUMMARY JUDGMENT BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE 

Re: Dkt. No. 46 

Plaintiff Jeffrey Gearhart (“Gearhart”) moves the Court for an order permitting him to 

conduct discovery to supplement the administrative record in this matter. (Dkt. No. 46.) 

Gearhart’s complaint seeks review of final agency decisions of the United States Department of 

Education (“the Department”) under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) on the grounds 

that the decisions were “arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in 

accordance with the law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). Plaintiff contends the administrative records 

lodged by the Department—three records totaling 132 pages (Dkt. Nos. 39, 40, 41)—are 

incomplete and insufficient for the Court to review the Department’s alleged lack of rational 

decision-making. Having considered the motion and opposition thereto, and for the reasons stated 

herein, the motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

Plaintiff states that he seeks to “supplement the record with his account of “non-recorded 

oral evidence,” correspondence from third parties relating to the validity of the student loan debt, 

and seeks an opportunity to engage in limited discovery, written and oral.” (Motion, Dkt. No. 46, 

at 2:9-12.) Plaintiff notes that the administrative records do not include evidence of statements 

made in phone calls between him and the Department. He seeks discovery in the form of 

testimony from the Secretary of Education explaining the factors considered in denying his 

Case 4:19-cv-00750-YGR Document 51 Filed 03/20/20 Page 1 of 4
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

challenges to the Government’s garnishment orders arising from federal student loans he received 

in 2003 and 2008. 

Under long-standing Supreme Court precedent, judicial review of agency decisions must 

be based upon the full administrative record before the agency when it made its decision. See 

Citizens to Pres. Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 420 (1971), abrogated on other 

grounds by Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99 (1977); Thompson v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 885 F.2d 

551, 555–56 (9th Cir. 1989). The validity of an agency’s findings will “stand or fall on the 

propriety” of its decision based upon the full administrative record and the applicable standard of 

review, i.e. whether the decision was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not 

in accordance with law. Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138, 143 (1973) (citing 5 U.S.C. § 706(2) (A)). 

“If that finding is not sustainable on the administrative record made, then the [agency’s] decision 

must be vacated and the matter remanded to [it] for further consideration.” Id.; see also Fla. 

Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729, 744 (1985) (“If the record before the agency does not 

support the agency action, if the agency has not considered all relevant factors, or if the reviewing 

court simply cannot evaluate the challenged agency action on the basis of the record before it, the 

proper course, except in rare circumstances, is to remand to the agency for additional investigation 

or explanation.”) 

“Generally, judicial review of agency action is limited to review of the record on which the 

administrative decision was based.” Thompson v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 885 F.2d 551, 555 (9th Cir. 

1989). Courts in the Ninth Circuit will permit “expansion of the administrative record in four 

narrowly construed circumstances: (1) supplementation is necessary to determine if the agency has 

considered all factors and explained its decision; (2) the agency relied on documents not in the 

record; (3) supplementation is needed to explain technical terms or complex subjects; or (4) 

plaintiffs have shown bad faith on the part of the agency.” Fence Creek Cattle Co. v. U.S. Forest 

Serv., 602 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2010). 

Under very limited circumstances, a court “may require the administrative officials who 

participated in the decision to give testimony explaining their action.” Citizens to Pres. Overton 

Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 420 (1971), abrogated on other grounds by Califano v. Sanders, 

Case 4:19-cv-00750-YGR Document 51 Filed 03/20/20 Page 2 of 4
3 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

430 U.S. 99 (1977). Again, such testimony is required only upon a strong showing that “the bare 

record [does] not disclose the factors that were considered or the Secretary's construction of the 

evidence,” and “bad faith or improper behavior.” Id. So, for instance, evidence showing that the 

proffered basis for an agency’s decision is pretextual may justify extra-record discovery. Dep't of 

Commerce v. New York, __ U.S. __, 139 S. Ct. 2551, 2574 (2019) (evidence that rationale for 

census question offered by Secretary played insignificant role in decision established prima facie

showing of pretext that justified ordering deposition of Acting Assistant Attorney General). 

Here, plaintiff has failed to identify specifically any documents he contends should 

supplement the administrative records lodged by the Department. While he argues generally that 

the records “contain[n] no indication how the agency reached its decision” and that the 

Department did not consider his hardship, he does not specify any documents that do not appear in 

the administrative records, nor does he specify the subjects of any testimony he seeks to elicit to 

add to the records.1 

Moreover, plaintiff has failed to set forth any basis for this Court to find that 

supplementation or discovery warranted due to a showing of pretext or necessity to explain the the 

decision (such as a showing of pretext) or a showing of the agency’s bad faith. See Fence Creek 

Cattle, 602 F.3d at 1131. 

Should Plaintiff seek to make a more specific showing of the need to supplement the 

record or engage in discovery, he shall explain that need in sufficient detail as part of his motion 

for summary judgment. 

The Court’s MODIFIES its previously issued scheduling order (Dkt. No. 38) as follows: 

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment shall be filed first. Defendants shall file their 

motion no later than April 7, 2020. Plaintiff’s Opposition and Cross-Motion (single brief) shall be 

1

 Plaintiff argues that the record “begins at June 20, 2017, and skips to plaintiff’s request 

for hearing and then to the letter from CCT regarding the class action on the student loan at page 

10 of 75” which he contends “suggests an absence of documentation on whether the agency 

decisionmaker's conduct was based on all the documents plaintiff submitted in support of his 

request for administrative relief.” It is unclear whether plaintiff is arguing that documents he 

submitted are missing from the record, or if instead he contends that the documents are there but 

were unacknowledged in the Department’s decision. 

Case 4:19-cv-00750-YGR Document 51 Filed 03/20/20 Page 3 of 4
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

filed by April 28, 2020. Defendant’s Reply and Opposition to Cross-Motion (single brief) shall 

be filed by May 19, 2020. Plaintiff’s Reply shall be filed by June 9, 2020. 

This terminates Docket No. 46. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 20, 2020 

______________________________________ 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:19-cv-00750-YGR Document 51 Filed 03/20/20 Page 4 of 4