Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00962/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00962-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

ACADEMY OF OUR LADY OF

PEACE,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09cv0962 CAB (MDD)

ORDER ON JOINT MOTION

FOR DETERMINATION OF

DISCOVERY DISPUTE

REGARDING

SUPPLEMENTING THE

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

[ECF NO. 169]

vs.

CITY OF SAN DIEGO,

Defendant.

Background

Before the Court is the Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute

regarding supplementing the administrative record. The motion was filed by the

parties on August 8, 2012. (ECF No. 116). On August 24, 2012, the Court engaged in

a telephonic conference with counsel regarding this dispute. (ECF No. 172). 

In this lawsuit, Plaintiff challenges the decision of Defendant, through the City

Council, to deny Plaintiff the necessary permits for its plan to modernize its campus

and buildings. Plaintiff’s surviving claims allege violations of the Religious Land Use

and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, the equal

protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

and the related provision of the California Constitution. Plaintiff also seeks a Writ of

- 1 - 09cv0962 CAB (MDD)

Case 3:09-cv-00962-CAB-MDD Document 173 Filed 08/27/12 Page 1 of 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

Mandate compelling Defendant to grant the permit for the Plaintiff’s modernization

plan. (ECF Nos. 109, 159). 

The administrative record regarding the decision of the San Diego City Council

denying the requested permits has been filed with the Court. (ECF Nos. 89 - 106). 

Included in the administrative record is an Adaptive Reuse Study prepared by Ed

McCardle, Plaintiff’s architect. Not included in the administrative record is a twopage summary of the Adaptive Reuse Study that Plaintiff claims should be part of the

record. (ECF No. 169-1 at 6-7). Defendant claims that the summary was not

submitted to the Council and, accordingly, is not part of the administrative record. 

Plaintiff asserts that the document was submitted and seeks an order from this Court

requiring the summary to made part of the administrative record. 

Discussion

At the telephonic discovery conference on August 24, 2012, the Court

confirmed with the parties that the actual Adaptive Reuse Study is included, in its

entirety, in the administrative record. The Court also confirmed with Plaintiff that

the subject summary is just that and does not contain any information beyond the

actual study. 

In support of Plaintiff’s contention that the summary was submitted to the

Council, Plaintiff relies primarily upon the testimony of Trish Butler before the

Council. Specifically, Ms. Butler stated:

Mr. McCardle provided you with a much more extended handout on his

adaptive reuse analysis but he really did cut his presentation short. So

if you want to explore that further, please, please feel free to do so.

(ECF No. 91-27, AR 2373). It is not entirely clear whether Ms. Butler was referring

to Mr. McCardle’s actual study or to the two-page summary. Mr. McCardle’s

testimony before the Council itself is a summary of some of his findings and does not

appear to refer to a separate summary document. (Id. at AR 2369-2373). Plaintiff

also argues that a letter submitted by Ms. Butler to the Council referenced the

- 2 - 09cv0962 CAB (MDD)

Case 3:09-cv-00962-CAB-MDD Document 173 Filed 08/27/12 Page 2 of 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

Adaptive Reuse Study as Tab 5 but that tab, and other exhibits to the letter, were not

included in the Administrative Record. (ECF No. 169 at 3). There is no evidence,

however, that the summary was contained in Tab 5. The declaration of Mr.

McCardle, provided by Plaintiff in support of this motion, does not specifically

address the summary at all. Instead, Mr. McCardle refers consistently to the study

he prepared, rather than the summary. (ECF No. 169-1, ¶¶ 5-7). To the extent that

Plaintiff suggests that the summary is part of the study itself to explain why it is not

specifically referenced by Mr. McCardle and Ms. Butler, the evidence does not does

not support such a finding. 

Plaintiff has not established that the summary was submitted to the Council.

Nor has Plaintiff demonstrated that it is prejudiced by the exclusion of the summary

from the administrative record. The two-page summary is derived entirely from the

Adaptive Reuse Study which is part of the record. Mr. McCardle’s testimony before

the Council itself was a summary of his findings. Inclusion of the two-page summary

into the record, although perhaps a convenient outline of the major findings of the

study, adds nothing to the actual information that was before the Council. 

Conclusion 

Plaintiff’s motion to supplement the administrative record by including the

two-page summary of the Adaptive Reuse Study is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED:

DATED: August 27, 2012

 

 Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

- 3 - 09cv0962 CAB (MDD)

Case 3:09-cv-00962-CAB-MDD Document 173 Filed 08/27/12 Page 3 of 3