Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02416/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02416-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 16:1538 Endangered Species 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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

CONSERVATION CONGRESS,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES FORREST SERVICE

and UNITED STATES FISH AND

WILDLIFE SERVICE, 

Defendants.

 /

NO. CIV. 2:12-02416 WBS KJN

ORDER RE: MOTION TO LIMIT

REVIEW TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE

RECORD

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff Conservation Congress brings this action

against the United States Forest Service (“USFS”) and the United

States Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) challenging defendants’

actions in connection with three proposed vegetation clearance

projects in the Mendocino National Forest. (Docket No. 1.) 

Presently before the court is defendants’ motion to limit review

of plaintiff’s claims against USFS under the Endangered Species

Act (“ESA”) to the administrative record. (Docket No. 17.)

1

Case 2:12-cv-02416-WBS-KJN Document 29 Filed 02/26/13 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

It would be premature to determine at this early stage

of the proceedings that plaintiffs’ claims against USFS under the

ESA’s citizen suit provision, 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(1), should be

strictly limited to the administrative record. See W. Watersheds

Project v. Kraayenbrink, 632 F.3d 472, 495 (9th Cir. 2011);

Conservation Congress v. Finley, Civ. No. 11-04752 SC (LB), 2012

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61634, at *9-17 (N.D. Cal. May 2, 2012). 

Defendants’ motion to limit review to the administrative record

is therefore DENIED without prejudice to the right to object

subsequently to the consideration of material outside of the

record.

Plaintiff may pursue discovery regarding its ESA claims

against USFS while plaintiff litigates its summary judgment

motion on its claims under the National Environmental Policy Act

(“NEPA”).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 26, 2013

 

2

Case 2:12-cv-02416-WBS-KJN Document 29 Filed 02/26/13 Page 2 of 2