Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-03809/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-03809-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 05:702 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 California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OCEANA, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

WILBUR L. ROSS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-03809-LHK (SVK)

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO COMPEL COMPLETION OF 

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

Re: Dkt. No. 42

Oceana, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) challenges a final rule setting annual catch limits for the central 

subpopulation of the northern anchovy (the “Rule”) promulgated by the National Marine Fisheries 

Service (“NMFS”). Dkt 1. Plaintiff brings its challenge under the Administrative Procedures Act 

(“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (“Magnuson Act”), 16 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq. In response to Plaintiff’s challenge, 

Wilbur Ross, in his official capacity as Secretary of Commerce; National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration; and NMFS (collectively, “Defendants”) prepared and submitted an 

Administrative Record (“AR”) to Plaintiff, Intervenor-Defendants California Wetfish Producers 

Association and Monterey Fish Company, Inc., and the Court on September 25, 2019. Dkt. 30. 

Before this Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendants to complete the

administrative record by adding two categories of materials: (1) scientific research and 

presentations that NMFS scientists and others developed and presented to NMFS officials; and (2) 

NMFS scientists’ communications, analyses, and draft assessments of the science that NMFS 

considered during the formulation of the Rule. Dkt. 42 at 1; Dkt. 45 at 1. Defendants oppose the 

motion on the grounds that the requested materials are not part of the administrative record 

because NMFS did not consider them, either directly or indirectly, when developing the Rule. 

Dkt. 44 at 12-14. 

Case 5:19-cv-03809-LHK Document 49 Filed 01/31/20 Page 1 of 13
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 California

Judge Lucy H. Koh referred this motion to the undersigned. Dkt. 40. The Court finds this 

matter suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Having 

considered the briefs and the relevant legal authority, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND 

DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s motion to compel completion of the administrative record for the 

reasons set forth below. 

Before setting forth details of the issues presented, the Court briefly addresses a subject, 

the nature of which is both form and substance. In the papers before the Court, both sides were 

unable to resist making substantive arguments in footnotes. Footnotes are for references or brief 

comments for clarification only. In short, “footnotes should not contain things that matter.” 

Hollis T. Hurd, Writing for Lawyers 82 (1982). The Court did not read, let alone consider, 

substantive arguments that either side relegated to a footnote. The Court notes that counsel in this 

matter are not alone in this transgression, but improvement must start somewhere. The Court will 

start with counsel at hand. 

I. BACKGROUND

On April 8, 2019, NMFS published a proposed rule titled “Fisheries Off West Coast 

States; Coastal Pelagic Species Fisheries; Multi-Year Harvest Specifications for the Central 

Subpopulation of Northern Anchovy” in the Federal Register and requested public comment. 

AR 292. The public comment period closed on April 23, 2019. AR 264. Subsequently, on May 

31, 2019, the final Rule was published in the Federal Register. 84 Fed. Reg. 25196-25202. The 

Rule set annual catch limits and other reference points for the Pacific sardine, Pacific mackerel, 

jack mackerel, northern and central subpopulations of the northern anchovy, market squid, and 

krill. 84 Fed. Reg. 25196. The Rule set an annual catch limit of 23,573 metric tons for the central 

subpopulation of northern anchovy (“anchovy”). Id. 

In this lawsuit, Plaintiff alleges that the challenged Rule is not based on the best available 

science, fails to prevent overfishing, fails to achieve optimum yield, and that Defendants failed to 

articulate a rational basis for their decisions in violation of the Magnuson Act and the APA. 

Dkt. 1; Dkt. 42 at 2.

////

Case 5:19-cv-03809-LHK Document 49 Filed 01/31/20 Page 2 of 13
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 California

II. LEGAL STANDARD

“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). “Motions to complete the Administrative Record may be granted where the agency 

fails to submit the ‘whole record.’” Ctr. for Envtl. Health v. Perdue, No. 18-cv-01763-RS, 2019 

WL 3852493, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 6, 2019) (citing 5 U.S.C. § 706). “The whole record 

encompasses all the evidence that was before the decision-making body” including “documents 

contrary to the agency’s position and all documents and materials directly or indirectly considered 

by agency decision-makers.” Sierra Club v. Zinke, No. 17-cv-07187-WHO, 2018 WL 3126401, at 

*2 (N.D. Cal. June 26, 2018) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). An agency may not 

exclude information it considered on the grounds that it did not rely on that information. People 

ex rel. Lockyer v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., No. C05-03508 EDL, 2006 WL 708914, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 

Mar. 16, 2006).

“An agency’s designation of the record is presumed complete, but plaintiffs may overcome 

the presumption by identify[ing] the allegedly omitted materials with sufficient specificity and 

identify[ing] reasonable, non-speculative grounds for the belief that the documents were 

considered by the agency and not included in the record. Sierra Club, 2018 WL 3126401, at * 2 

(citing Oceana, Inc. v. Pritzker, No. 16-CV-06784-LHK (SVK), 2017 WL 2670733, at *2 (N.D. 

Cal. June 21, 2017)) (alterations in original and internal quotation marks omitted). The plaintiff 

can also rebut the presumption of completeness “by showing that the agency applied the wrong 

standard in compiling the record.” Sierra Club, 2018 WL 3126401, at * 2 (citing Oceana, 2017 

WL 2670733, at *2). The plaintiff need not show bad faith or improper motive to rebut the 

presumption. Lockyer, 2006 WL 708914, at *2. 

////

////

////

////

////

Case 5:19-cv-03809-LHK Document 49 Filed 01/31/20 Page 3 of 13
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 California

III. DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiff Has Demonstrated that Defendants Applied the Wrong Standard

in Compiling the Record

Although the agency bears the initial responsibility to assemble the administrative record, 

the administrative record “is not necessarily those documents that the agency has compiled and 

submitted as ‘the’ administrative record.” Thompson, 885 F.2d at 555 (citation omitted). 

Similarly, although an agency’s certification of the administrative record is entitled to a strong 

presumption of regularity, a certification that does not make clear that the record includes all 

documents and materials directly or indirectly considered by the agency in making its decision 

“suggests noncompliance with the standard according to which an administrative record should be 

compiled.” Gill v. Dep’t of Justice, No. 14-cv-03120-RS (KAW), 2015 WL 9258075, at *3-6

(N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2015) (holding presumption of completeness rebutted where agency certified 

that the record contained all information “considered in the development” of the agency action but 

did not state that all materials directly or indirectly considered by the agency were included).

Here, NMFS assembled the administrative record and filed it with the Court along with a 

certification signed by senior NMFS Fishery Management Specialist Joshua Lindsay. Dkt. 30-2 

(“Certification”) ¶ 1. Mr. Lindsay was the primary NMFS staff member responsible for preparing

the final version of the 2019 Rule. Certification ¶ 2. Mr. Lindsay is the “custodian of NMFS 

documents relating to the May 2019 final rule” and “NMFS documents relating to Amendments 8 

and 13 to the CPS FMP.” Certification ¶ 3. The Certification states that the “[r]ecords composing

the administrative record for the 2019 Rule, as well as Amendments 8 and 13 to the CPS FMP, are 

located in the NMFS West Coast Region office in Long Beach, California.” Certification ¶ 4. 

Under Mr. Lindsay’s “direction and supervision, NMFS staff in the Long Beach Office conducted 

a diligent search for, (sic) and assembled the documents for the administrative record for the 2019 

Rule and Amendments 8 and 13 to the CPS FMP.” Certification ¶ 5. The Certification states that 

the record filed with the Court constitutes “a true, correct, and complete copy of the administrative 

record for the 2019 Rule as well as Amendments 8 and 13 to the CPS FMP and their 

implementing regulations.” Certification ¶ 7. 

Case 5:19-cv-03809-LHK Document 49 Filed 01/31/20 Page 4 of 13
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

The Certification fails to identify any criteria used by NMFS staff in their search for and 

assembly of documents for the administrative record. As a result, the Certification “suggests 

noncompliance with the standard according to which an administrative record should be 

compiled,” particularly in light of Plaintiff’s demonstration that the record excludes certain 

materials that were indeed considered, either directly or indirectly, by NMFS in preparing the 

Rule. See Gill, 2015 WL 9258075, at *6; see also Oceana, 2017 WL 2670733, at *2. In 

opposition to this motion, Mr. Lindsay submits a declaration averring that the administrative 

record now contains “all documents directly or indirectly considered by agency decision-makers 

for the Rule.” Dkt. 44-2 ¶ 5. Defendants’ attempt to amend the Certification is too late and 

therefore unavailing. See Gill, 2015 WL 9258075, at *6 (stating that “merely re-drafting” the 

certification is not sufficient to ensure completeness of the administrative record). Accordingly, 

Plaintiff has overcome the presumption of completeness. 

B. Plaintiff Has Specifically Identified the Omitted Materials and Has 

Articulated Reasonable, Non-Speculative Grounds for its Belief that the 

Documents Were Considered but Not Included 

A plaintiff may also overcome the presumption of completeness by: (1) identifying the 

allegedly omitted materials with sufficient specificity; and (2) identifying reasonable, nonspeculative grounds for its belief that the documents were considered by the agency and not 

included in the record. Sierra Club, 2018 WL 3126401, at * 2. Plaintiff has specifically identified

ten documents that it believes were omitted by Defendants in their preparation of the 

administrative record. Dkt. 42-1 (“Treece Decl.”) ¶ ¶ 4-7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17. In addition to 

these ten documents, Plaintiff has identified a distinct category of documents – drafts and 

discussions of NMFS’ scientific reports – that it contends was omitted by Defendants. Dkt. 42 at 

17-18. The Court finds that Plaintiff has identified the allegedly omitted materials with sufficient 

specificity as required. See Sierra Club, 2018 WL 3126401, at * 2. The remaining question is 

whether Plaintiff has identified reasonable, non-speculative grounds for its belief that these 

documents were considered by NMFS in the formulation of the Rule. 

////

////

Case 5:19-cv-03809-LHK Document 49 Filed 01/31/20 Page 5 of 13
6

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 California

1. Scientific Research and Presentations That NMFS Scientists and 

Others Developed and Presented to NMFS Officials

The first category of documents Plaintiff seeks to include in the administrative record 

contains “various materials presented to the [Pacific Fishery Management] Council (“PFMC”) as 

well as materials presented at the scientific workshop hosted by NMFS’s own Southwest Fisheries 

Science Center (“SWFSC”) concerning issues of anchovy management raised by the 2019 Catch 

Rule.” Dkt. 42 at 9. Plaintiff contends that “NMFS staff involved in developing the 2019 Catch 

Rule participated in each of the [PFMC] meetings and the [SWFSC]’s 2018 scientific workshop 

on using acoustic trawl survey data in anchovy management” and that “NMFS scientists authored 

many of the documents.” Id. Additionally, Plaintiff contends that these documents “inform[ed] 

the agency’s understanding of issues directly relevant to the 2019 Catch Rule, including: data on 

anchovy abundance over time, discussions of data sources used to inform catch limits, critiques of 

the static management approach adopted in the 2019 Catch Rule, and the requirement to account 

for the needs of marine predators in setting catch limits.” Id. Plaintiff identifies three

subcategories of documents (Id. at 10-15) and the Court addresses each subcategory below. 

a. Materials Regarding Anchovy Abundance Data, Estimates, 

and Survey Methodology Presented at PFMC Meetings

Plaintiff first seeks to include six documents1regarding “anchovy abundance data, 

estimates, and survey methodology” that were presented to and discussed at PFMC meetings. 

Dkt. 42 at 10. Plaintiff also seeks the audio recordings and transcripts from the PFMC meetings 

that reflect the discussion of these materials. Id. at 11. Plaintiff contends that these documents

were created in response to PFMC requests and were developed and presented by NMFS scientists 

to inform PFMC about the acoustic trawl survey. Id. Additionally, five of these documents were 

included in a briefing book provided to NMFS. Dkt. 45 at 6.

Though Defendants contend that Plaintiff failed to offer evidence that any of these 

documents were directly or indirectly considered by NMFS during the creation of the Rule 

(Dkt. 44 at 15), this Court finds otherwise. Plaintiff has offered persuasive evidence that these six

1 Plaintiff originally sought to include Treece Decl. Exs. B-E and G-I. The Parties have since 

agreed that Exhibit G is already contained in the record. 

Case 5:19-cv-03809-LHK Document 49 Filed 01/31/20 Page 6 of 13
7

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 California

documents were considered by Defendants during the formation of the Rule. First, Plaintiff 

presented evidence that these documents were presented to PFMC during its April 2017, 

September 2017, November 2017, and April 2018 meetings, during the development of the Rule. 

See Oceana, 2017 WL 2670733, at *6; Dkt. 42 at 11-14; Treece Decl. Exs. B-E, H, I. Plaintiff 

also noted that NMFS is part of the PFMC and that NMFS representatives, specifically those 

responsible for the development of the Rule, received these documents. Dkt. 42 at 10. Second, 

Plaintiff averred that four2of these documents were authored by NMFS, the same agency that 

developed the Rule challenged in this case. See Oceana, 2017 WL 2670733, at *6-7; Dkt. 42 at 

12-13. 

With respect to Exhibit E, the only document that was not directly provided to NMFS in a 

briefing book, Defendants asserted that it could not have been considered because it was only cited 

in a document that was presented to PFMC and the mere citation of a document in another record 

document is not sufficient to meet Plaintiff’s burden. Dkt. 44 at 17. Plaintiff has, however,

offered evidence that Exhibit E was presented at a 2018 SWFSC Workshop titled “Acoustic Trawl 

Methodology Review for Use in Coastal Pelagic Species Stock Assessments,” which Joshua 

Lindsay, “the lead NMFS staff member in charge of developing the 2019 Catch Rule,” attended. 

See Oceana, 2017 WL 2670733, at *3; Dkt. 42 at 12-13.

The Court is not persuaded by Defendants’ arguments that the contents of these requested 

documents are addressed by other documents already contained in the record or that Plaintiff 

should have submitted these documents when it submitted its comments on the proposed Rule. 

Dkt. 44 at 17-18. Rather, for the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that Plaintiff has 

identified reasonable, non-speculative grounds for its belief that these six documents should be 

part of the administrative record and NMFS must include them. 

There is, however, an exception to the Court’s finding: the associated audio recordings and 

transcripts that reflect the discussion of these six documents. Plaintiff argues that the audio 

recordings and transcripts should be included because they “reflect the Council's—including 

2 Treece Decl. Exs. D, E, H, I. 

Case 5:19-cv-03809-LHK Document 49 Filed 01/31/20 Page 7 of 13
8

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 California

NMFS’s—consideration of those materials.” Dkt. 42 at 11. Defendants do not address these 

items in their opposition. Nevertheless, Plaintiff’s statement alone does not provide the requisite 

reasonable or non-speculative grounds for inclusion in the administrative record. 

b. Materials Concerning Anchovy Management Presented at 

PFMC Meetings

Plaintiff also seeks to include two documents3that were received and considered by PFMC 

in April 2019. Dkt. 42 at 14. Plaintiff represents that these documents analyze “the status of two 

key forage species, Pacific sardine and Pacific mackerel” and that the statuses of such forage 

species are “relevant to whether the 2019 Catch Rule and the management approach it uses 

account for the needs of marine predators when setting catch limits for anchovy.” Id. at 

14-15. Plaintiff also argues that these two documents “underscore NMFS’s ability to use [ATS] 

data for management, including regularly updating catch limits to reflect the status of anchovy and 

other coastal pelagic species populations. Id. at 15. Plaintiff also points to the Rule itself, which 

states that NMFS did not find any “credible scientific record” for Oceana’s comments that prey 

dependency dictates reductions to the catch limits. Id. at 15 (citing AR 264 at 16387, 16391). As 

these materials were presented at PFMC meetings, the Court finds that Plaintiff has identified 

reasonable, non-speculative grounds for its belief that these two documents were considered by 

NMFS in its formulation of the Rule for the same reasons stated above. See supra Section 

III.B.1.a. NMFS must also include these documents in the administrative record. 

c. Materials presented at the 2018 SWFSC Workshop

Plaintiff also seeks to include two documents4that were presented at a 2018 SWFSC 

workshop titled “Acoustic Trawl Methodology Review for Use in Coastal Pelagic Species Stock 

Assessments.” Dkt. 42 at 13-14. Plaintiff contends that NMFS scientists “developed most of the 

materials presented and discussed at the workshop” and that “Joshua Lindsay, the lead NMFS staff 

member in charge of developing the 2019 Catch Rule,” attended the workshop. Id. at 13 (citing 

3 Treece Decl. Exs. N, O. 

4 Plaintiff originally sought to include Treece Decl. Exs. J-M but the Parties have agreed that 

Exhibits J and M are contained in the record. 

Case 5:19-cv-03809-LHK Document 49 Filed 01/31/20 Page 8 of 13
9

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 California

AR 383 at 18859). Plaintiff also argues that these two documents, both of which were produced 

by NMFS scientists, are “directly relevant to the issues at hand” and that NMFS “clearly 

considered them” during the creation of the Rule. Id. at 14. Defendants argue, in part, that “the 

mere fact that NMFS scientists prepared [these documents] does not show that the agency 

decision-makers considered them for the 2019 Rule.” Dkt. 44 at 18. Defendants concede that the 

documents “concern anchovy abundance and the acoustic trawl surveys,” but argue that the 

contents of these requested documents are addressed by other documents already contained in the 

record. Id. at 19. 

While this Court acknowledges Defendants’ argument that the fact that NMFS scientists 

prepared these documents is not, by itself, sufficient to show that the documents were considered 

during the formulation of the Rule, Plaintiff has offered additional persuasive evidence to support 

its claim. Plaintiff has demonstrated that Mr. Lindsay attended the workshop at which these 

materials were presented. Dkt. 42 at 13 (citing AR 383 at 18859). As Mr. Lindsay was “the lead 

NMFS staff member in charge of developing the 2019 Catch Rule,” Plaintiff has established that 

these two documents were considered by NMFS but not included in the record. See Oceana, 2017 

WL 2670733, at *3; Dkt. 42 at 13-14. NMFS must include these documents from the 2018 SFSC 

Workshop in the administrative record.

2. NMFS Scientists’ Communications, Analyses, and Draft 

Assessments of the Science Considered in the Rule

The second category of documents Plaintiff seeks to include consists of NMFS scientists’ 

communications, analyses, and draft assessments regarding the science that NMFS considered in 

formulating the Rule. Dkt. 42 at 18; Dkt. 45 at 10. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks: (1) “all reports 

reflecting estimates of anchovy abundance using acoustic trawl survey (“ATS”) data for each year 

such estimates were developed;” (2) “drafts of these reports;” and (3) “email communications or 

other correspondence, meeting notes, or memoranda concerning the analyses contained in these 

reports as well as edits to the reports.” Dkt. 42 at 18. Plaintiff argues that NMFS used the data 

detailed in its 2016, 2017, and 2018 ATS reports to set the catch limit values in the Rule. Id. at 

17. Plaintiff contends that these reports, all of which were produced by NMFS’ scientists at the 

Case 5:19-cv-03809-LHK Document 49 Filed 01/31/20 Page 9 of 13
10

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 California

SWFSC, are critical because “NMFS points to these three reports as the primary source for its 

claims that its 2019 Catch Rule was based on the best available science,” but the “administrative 

record contains no communications, meeting notes, analyses, emails, or drafts of these reports 

demonstrating what factors the agency’s scientists considered, how the[y] . . . weighed or 

combined those factors in producing these reports, or whether and how the scientists’ 

interpretation of the data did or did not change over time.” Id. at 17-18 (citing AR 264 at 16386-

87). 

Defendants have agreed to include the final copies of the ATS reports but have declined to 

include drafts, edits, emails, meeting notes, and other documents (categories 2 and 3 above) 

because NMFS did not consider such documents in developing the Rule. Dkt. 44 at 20. 

Defendants contend that “NMFS staff that prepared the 2019 Rule did not consider every scrap of 

paper ever generated by the SWFSC regarding the 2016-18 acoustic trawl estimates.” Id. at 21 

(citing Dkt. 44-2 ¶ 12). 

It is well-settled that “in many cases[,] internal comments, draft reports, inter- or intraagency emails, revisions, memoranda, or meeting notes will inform an agency’s final decision.” 

Inst. for Fisheries Res. v. Burwell, No. 16-cv-01574-VC, 2017 WL 89003, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 

Jan. 10, 2017). Indeed, “internal materials are part of the ‘universe of materials’ considered by the 

agency . . . and must be included in the administrative record unless omitted on the basis of 

privilege.” Ctr. for Envtl. Health, 2019 WL 3852493, at *2 (citations omitted). Other courts in 

this Circuit have cautioned that “[a]llowing agencies discretion to determine which internal 

communications to include or withhold, without explanation, . . . ‘would invite all manner of 

mischief.’” S.F. Bay Conservation and Dev. Comm’n v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, No. 16-cv05420-RS (JCS), 2018 WL 3846002, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2018) (citing Regents of the Univ. 

of Cal. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. C 17-05211 WHA, 2018 WL 1210551, at *6 (N.D. 

Cal. Mar. 8, 2018)). The Ninth Circuit has emphasized that “[t]he whole record includes 

everything that was before the agency pertaining to the merits of its decision.” Portland Audubon 

Soc’y v. Or. Lands Coalition, 984 F.2d 1534 (9th Cir. 1993) (emphasis added and internal 

quotation marks omitted). Thus, “[t]he ‘whole record’ . . . includes documents that ‘literally 

Case 5:19-cv-03809-LHK Document 49 Filed 01/31/20 Page 10 of 13
11

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 California

pass[ed] before the eyes of the final agency decision maker’ as well as those considered and relied 

upon by subordinates who provided recommendations to the decisionmaker.” Regents, 2018 WL 

1210551, at *2 (alterations in original and citations omitted). 

Given this standard, Defendants’ argument that they “did not consider every scrap of paper 

ever generated by the SWFSC” does not withstand scrutiny. If such “scrap[s] of paper” were used

by SWFSC scientists to develop recommendations for NMFS, those papers must be included in 

the record. Despite Defendants’ arguments to the contrary, Plaintiff has in fact offered evidence 

that Defendants considered the draft ATS reports, email and other correspondence, meeting notes, 

and memoranda while creating the Rule. The ATS reports are mentioned throughout the text of

the Rule (see 84 Fed. Reg. 25197-25199) and many of the documents already contained in the 

record discuss the ATS data. Plaintiff also notes that PFMC meeting records indicate that NMFS 

was “well aware that its own scientists were analyzing and developing anchovy abundance 

estimates from these acoustic trawl surveys.” Dkt. 42 at 22. Plaintiff argues that in the previous 

Oceana case, this Court ordered Defendants to include “ATS data from summer 2015, analyses of 

that data (including communications discussing or conveying such analyses), and drafts of the 

ATS paper that was presented to the Council on November 19, 2016.” Dkt. 42 at 18 (quoting 

Oceana, Inc., 2017 WL 2670733, at *5).

Defendants argue that the previous case is distinguishable because there was no final ATS 

report and the Court “had no basis to believe that only a single final document . . . was considered 

by the agency” while in this case, Defendants have stated that NMFS considered only the final

reports in its development of the Rule. Dkt. 44 at 20. This Court did not ground its finding in the 

previous case on the lack of a final report, however, so Defendants’ argument is not convincing. 

Defendants also attempt to distinguish the previous case by arguing that it involved a rule that was 

“produced over a longer period” and thus “it was more plausible” that NMFS “might have 

considered such work-in-process materials in the absence of a final report,” while the current Rule 

“was prepared on a much more compressed schedule.” Id. The Court is similarly unconvinced. 

Accordingly, the administrative record must include the ATS materials that existed as of 

May 31, 2019, including all reports reflecting estimates of anchovy abundance using ATS data for 

Case 5:19-cv-03809-LHK Document 49 Filed 01/31/20 Page 11 of 13
12

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 California

2016, 2017, and 2018; drafts of these reports; and email communications or other correspondence, 

meeting notes, or memoranda regarding the analyses contained in these reports and their drafts. 

C. Defendants’ Request to Limit the Use of Documents

Defendants ask this Court to “make clear” that “none of the documents at issue, including 

those in the record of the 2016 rule, that post-date NMFS’ approval of the challenged FMP 

provisions may be used for purposes of Plaintiff’s challenge to those provisions.” Dkt. 44 at 24. 

This Court declines to make such a restriction as Defendants’ request does not go to the proper 

scope of the dispute before this Court. 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons detailed above, the Court ORDERS Defendants to complete the 

administrative record within thirty days of this order with the following documents:

1. The following scientific research and presentations that were presented to 

NMFS officials excluding any audio recordings or transcripts: 

• Treece Decl. Exhibit B

• Treece Decl. Exhibit C

• Treece Decl. Exhibit D

• Treece Decl. Exhibit E

• Treece Decl. Exhibit H

• Treece Decl. Exhibit I

• Treece Decl. Exhibit K

• Treece Decl. Exhibit L

• Treece Decl. Exhibit N

• Treece Decl. Exhibit O

2. All data obtained through NMFS’ ATS activities prior to the publication of the 

Rule and the following materials that existed as of May 31, 2019: analyses of 

that data, including email communications or other correspondence, meeting 

notes, or memoranda; and drafts of the final ATS reports. 

Defendants have not argued that any of these materials are privileged. If Defendants withhold any 

Case 5:19-cv-03809-LHK Document 49 Filed 01/31/20 Page 12 of 13
13

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 California

of these documents from the record on the basis of privilege, they must add them to a privilege log 

no later than the date set forth above.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 31, 2020

SUSAN VAN KEULEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:19-cv-03809-LHK Document 49 Filed 01/31/20 Page 13 of 13