Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01281/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01281-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
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

DESERT PROTECTIVE COUNCIL, a

California nonprofit corporation;

LABORERS’ INTERNATIONAL UNION

OF NORTH AMERICA LOCAL UNION

NO. 1184, an organized labor union;

HECTOR CASILLAS, an individual; and

JOHN NORTON, an individual,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 12cv1281-GPC(PCL)

ORDER GRANTING OCOTILLO’S

MOTION TO STRIKE EXTRARECORD DECLARATION OF

SCOTT CASHEN AND THE

ATTACHED EXHIBIT 1;

GRANTING FEDERAL

DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST TO

EXCLUDE DECLARATION OF

SCOTT CASHEN; DENYING AS

MOOT BOTH DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO STRIKE AND

EXCLUDE EXHIBIT B TO CASHEN

DECLARATION; GRANTING IN

PART AND DENYING IN PART

FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO

FILE THEIR OPPOSITION TO

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND

THEIR CROSS-MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

[Dkt. Nos 66, 68, 74.]

vs.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE

INTERIOR; KEN SALAZAR, Secretary,

U.S. Department of the Interior; UNITED

STATES BUREAU OF LAND

MANAGEMENT; ROBERT ABBEY,

Director, U.S. Bureau of Land Management;

TERI RAML District Manager, BLM

California Desert District; MARGARET

GOODRO, Field Manager, BLM El Centro

Field Office; COUNTY OF IMPERIAL,

CALIFORNIA; BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

OF THE COUNTY OF IMPERIAL;

OCOTILLO EXPRESS LLC, a whollyowned subsidiary of PATTERN ENERGY

GROUP LP, a Delaware Limited Partnership;

PATTERN ENERGY GROUP LP, a

Delaware Limited Partnership, 

Defendants.

- 1 - [12cv1281-GPC(PCL)]

Case 3:12-cv-01281-GPC-PCL Document 79 Filed 12/21/12 Page 1 of 5
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

On December 7, 2012, Defendant Ocotillo Express, LLC filed a motion to strike the extrarecord declaration of Scott Cashen and accompanying exhibits. (Dkt. No. 66.) On December 8, 2012,

Federal Defendants filed a motion to exclude extra-record materials and to reset briefing schedule. 

(Dkt. No. 68.) Plaintiffs filed a limited opposition on December 13, 2012. (Dkt. No. 71.) In their

response, Plaintiffs agreed to exclude paragraphs 9-21 of the Cashen Declaration and attached a

proposed revised memorandum in support of motion for summary judgment excluding reference to

those paragraphs. (Dkt. No. 71-1.) As to paragraphs 3-8, Plaintiffs argue that exceptions to extrarecord evidence apply. On December 18, 2012, Ocotillo filed a reply. (Dkt. No. 72.) Federal

1 2

Defendants also filed a reply. (Dkt. No. 73.) 

On December 19, 2012, in light of the motions pending before the Court, Federal Defendants

filed a motion for extension of time to file their opposition and cross-motion for summary judgment. 

(Dkt. No. 74.) Plaintiffs file an opposition on December 20, 2012. (Dkt. No. 76.) On December 21,

2012, Federal Defendants filed a reply. (Dkt. No. 77.) 

Discussion

Ocotillo argues that the declaration is extra-record and should be stricken. They argue that

Cashen’s declaration goes beyond the record and instead of shedding light on whether the agency

considered all relevant factors, Plaintiffs improperly challenge the BLM’s conclusions in the final

Avian and Bat Protection Plan (“ABPP”) and the Final Environmental Impact Statement (“FEIS”). 

In addition, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs failed to submit Cashen’s declaration prior to the close

of the administrative process and provide no reasons why they failed to do so. Lastly, they argue that

the exception regarding the agencyrelying on documents not in the record does not allow post-decision

testimony from Cashen to attack the ABPP’s conclusions as to the raptor data. 

Federal Defendants contend that Cashen’s declaration is being offered to attack the merits of

Paragraph 1 states Cashen’s qualifications as Plaintiffs’ expert and paragraph 2 states what 1

Cashen has reviewed in connection with the declaration. (Dkt. No. 63-5.) 

Ocotillo notes that paragraph 4 of the Cashen declaration was presented during the DEIS

2

comment period and the BLM responded to that comment. (See AR 53,848; 3486 (BLM’s response

to Cashen’s comments). Therefore, paragraph 4 of the Cashen declaration cannot supplement the

record as it is already in the administrative record. 

- 2 - [12cv1281-GPC(PCL)]

Case 3:12-cv-01281-GPC-PCL Document 79 Filed 12/21/12 Page 2 of 5
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 ABPP and ultimately the BLM’s decision and does not identify relevant factors that were not

considered. Moreover, Federal Defendants dispute the veracity of the contents of the declaration. 

Plaintiffs argue that the Cashen declaration and attached exhibits fall under the exception to

extra-record evidence where admission is necessary to determine whether the agency has considered

3

all relevant factors and has explained its decision, and that the agency relied on documents not in the

record. They argue that Scott Cashen bases his analysis on the 2002 Erickson et al. study entitled

“Synthesis and Comparison of Baseline Avian and Bat Use, Raptor Nesting, and MortalityInformation

from Proposed and Existing Wind Developments.” The study was cited in the appendix page of the

ABPP on March 9, 2012. (AR at 2989.) Plaintiffs allege that Defendants did not consider all relevant

factors because they relied on a faulty comparative raptor use analysis performed by the Project

Proponent’s consultant in the final ABPP. They argue the conclusion in the FEIS that raptor use of

the site was low relative to other wind projects is in contrast to the comparative raptor use data at other

sites set out in the 2002 Erickson study. Although the 2002 Erickson study is cited in the final ABPP,

which is part of the administrative record, the study, itself, is not found in the administrative record. 

Plaintiffs further state that since the Erickson report was cited in the final ABPP which came out in

March 2012, it was not subject to an additional public comment and review as part of the FEIS. 

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 alreadyin 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). 

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

The Court notes that Plaintiffs did not file a motion to supplement the record. 3

- 3 - [12cv1281-GPC(PCL)]

Case 3:12-cv-01281-GPC-PCL Document 79 Filed 12/21/12 Page 3 of 5
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

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 widelyaccepted, these exceptions are narrowly construed and applied.” 

Id. The moving party has the burden of demonstrating that an exception applies. See Animal Defense

Council v. Hodel, 840 F.2d 1432, 1436-38 (9th Cir. 1988). 

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). 

The BLM issued the ABPP on March 9, 2012 along with the FEIS. Although there was no

formal comment period on the FEIS, BLM accepted comments on the final FEIS, as demonstrated by

Cashen’s April 23, 2012 FEIS comment letter which is part of the administrative record. (AR 56,746-

94.) The 2002 report was available to Cashen more than a month before he submitted a comment

letter on the FEIS as the website was provided in the appendix. Therefore, Plaintiffs argument that

they had no opportunity to comment on the final ABPP or FEIS is without merit. 

In addition, Cashen’s declaration disagrees and challenges the BLM’s interpretation and

conclusions as to the raptor use data in the final ABPP and FEIS. Plaintiffs may not use “post-decision

information as a new rationalization for . . . attacking the Agency’s decision.” Ctr. For Biological

Diversity, 450 F.3d at 942. Plaintiffs had the opportunity to address these issues before the

- 4 - [12cv1281-GPC(PCL)]

Case 3:12-cv-01281-GPC-PCL Document 79 Filed 12/21/12 Page 4 of 5
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

administrative record closed and may not present extra-record evidence that was not before the BLM. 

Plaintiffs have also not shown that the two exceptions apply to the extra-record declaration of Cashen

and attached exhibits. 

Conclusion

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant Ocotillo’s motion to strike the extra-record

Declaration of Scott Cashen and the attached Exhibit 1 and GRANTS Federal Defendants’ motion to

exclude extra record evidence. The Court DENIES as MOOT Defendants motion to strike and exclude

Exhibit B of the Cashen Declaration as the Federal Defendants have agreed to supplement the

administrative record with the 2002 Erickson study which is attached as Exhibit B to the Cashen

Declaration. Plaintiffs shall re-file their opening brief on or before December 28, 2012 without

reference to the declaration of Scott Cashen and the accompanying exhibits. Defendants shall file their

oppositions to Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and their cross motions for summary

judgment on or before January 4, 2013. Plaintiffs shall file a reply on their motion and opposition

to the cross-motions for summaryjudgment on or before January 18, 2013. Defendants shall file their

replies to the cross-motions for summary judgment on or before February 1, 2013. A hearing is set

on February 22, 2013 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 9.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 21, 2012

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 5 - [12cv1281-GPC(PCL)]

Case 3:12-cv-01281-GPC-PCL Document 79 Filed 12/21/12 Page 5 of 5