Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00249/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00249-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Conservation Congress
Plaintiff
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Defendant
United States Forest Service
Defendant

Document Text:

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

Andrew G. Ogden (CA Bar # 112384)

Attorney at Law

PO Box 3673

Boulder, CO 80307-3673

(303) 818-9422

aogden@indra.com

Sean Malone (OR Bar # 084060) Pro Hac Vice

259 E.5th Ave, Ste200-G 

Eugene, OR 97401

Tel: (303) 859-0403

Fax: (650) 471-7366

seanmalone8@hotmail.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CONSERVATION CONGRESS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE and 

UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE 

SERVICE

Defendants,

No. 2:15. -cv-249-WBS-AC 

Senior Judge William B. Shubb

LOCAL RULE 260(c) STIPULATION,

STIPULATION TO WAIVE THE 

REMAINING LOCAL RULE 260(a) AND 

(b) REQUIREMENTS, AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER

Case 2:15-cv-00249-WBS-AC Document 43 Filed 12/11/15 Page 1 of 8
LOCAL RULE 260(c) STIPULATION

Conservation Congress v. U.S. Forest Serv., No. 2:15-cv-0249-WBS-AC 1

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

INTRODUCTION

Under Local Rule 260(c), the Parties have stipulated to the facts in the United States 

Forest Service’s Administrative Record and to the facts in the United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service’s Administrative Record. Under Local Rule 143, the Parties have further stipulated to 

request the Court to waive the Local Rule 260(a) and (b) requirements to file statements of 

undisputed and disputed facts for six documents that are not currently part of either 

administrative record. 

BASIS FOR THEIR REQUEST

The Parties believe that statements of undisputed and disputed facts will not materially 

advance this case toward a resolution on the merits. Conservation Congress has brought this case 

under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706 and substantive provisions 

of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531 et seq. Second Amended Complaint 

for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (the Complaint) ¶¶ 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 37-38, 39-43, 50, 57, 64, 

70, 76, 83, 85-109, 111, 112,114, and 115. ECF No. 10. 

Federal Defendants’ Position

The Ninth Circuit has directed courts to resolve challenges to agency action under the 

APA on summary judgment motions. See Nw. Motorcycle Assn. v. USDA, 18 F.3d 1468, 1471-

72 (9th Cir. 1994). When plaintiffs bring cases under the APA, “[t]he task of the reviewing court 

is to apply the appropriate APA standard of review, 5 U.S.C. § 706, to the agency decision based 

on the record the agency presents to the reviewing court.” Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 

U.S. 729, 744 (1985). Under the APA, “the function of the district court is to determine whether 

or not as a matter of law the evidence in the administrative record permitted the agency to make 

the decision it did.” Occidental Eng’g Co. v. INS, 753 F.2d 766, 769 (9th Cir. 1985).

Because the Court need not, and may not, “find” underlying facts, there are no material 

facts essential to this Court’s resolution of this action. See, e.g., Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 

U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 497 U.S. 871, 883-85 (1990). Thus, the 

“facts” necessary for resolution of this case on the pending cross-motions for summary judgment 

are set forth in the Administrative Record before the Court. See Russell Country Sportsmen v. 

Case 2:15-cv-00249-WBS-AC Document 43 Filed 12/11/15 Page 2 of 8
LOCAL RULE 260(c) STIPULATION

Conservation Congress v. U.S. Forest Serv., No. 2:15-cv-0249-WBS-AC 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

U.S. Forest Serv., 668 F.3d 1037, 1046 n.13 (9th Cir. 2011) (“rely[ing] on the correct numbers” 

in the administrative record instead of relying on an apparent admission in a statement of 

genuine issues), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 2439 (2012). 

Moreover, Conservation Congress’s ESA claims do not authorize expanding the scope of 

review beyond the agencies administrative records—not even for the ESA claims. See, e.g., Vill. 

of False Pass v. Clark, 733 F.2d 605, 609 (9th Cir. 1984). 

Therefore, Federal Defendants see no reason for a further statements of disputed and 

undisputed facts because the two administrative records contain the information upon which the 

APA allows this Court to rule. Nonetheless, the United States has identified six extra-record 

documents that Plaintiffs have filed and that neither administrative record contains:

 The First Decl. of Andrew G. Ogden, ECF No. 35, 

 The three exhibits to the First Declaration of Ogden, id. at 4-25, and 

 Two exhibits attached to Plaintiff Conservation Congress’s Request for Judicial Notice in 

Support of the Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 37 at 6-19. 

Federal Defendants expect that the Court will rule on whether it can consider those six 

extra-record documents in the context of two motions. Conservation Congress has already filed a 

Request for Judicial Notice. On December 11, 2015, Federal Defendants anticipate filing, along 

with their cross-motion for summary judgment, a motion to strike the remaining extra-record 

evidence Conservation Congress proffered. See [Scheduling] Order, ECF No. 24. 

Conservation Congress’s Position

Conservation Congress brought claims under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 

U.S.C. §§ 1531 et seq., the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et 

seq., the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1601, et seq., and the 

Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq. Plaintiff’s claims arising under 

NFMA, NEPA, and, in part, the ESA are governed by an administrative record because they 

arise under the APA. Claims involving the APA are generally subject to an administrative 

Case 2:15-cv-00249-WBS-AC Document 43 Filed 12/11/15 Page 3 of 8
LOCAL RULE 260(c) STIPULATION

Conservation Congress v. U.S. Forest Serv., No. 2:15-cv-0249-WBS-AC 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

record, but the Ninth Circuit allows for the admission of extra-record evidence under certain 

circumstances. See Lands Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d 1019, 1030 (9th Cir. 2005).1 

Plaintiff’s remaining claims arise under the substantive provisions of the ESA, which 

required satisfaction of the statute’s 60-day notification requirement. 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(1)(A). 

Plaintiff’s claims under the ESA’s citizen suit provision do not involve review of “final agency 

action” under the Administrative Procedure Act, and, therefore, are not limited to an 

administrative record. See Washington Toxics Coalition v. EPA, 413 F.3d 1024, 1034 (9th Cir. 

2005); Oregon Nat’l Desert Assoc. v. Kimbrell, 593 F. Supp. 2d 1217, 1220 (D. Or. 2009);

Western Watersheds Project v. Kraayenbrink, 632 F.3d 472, 497 (9th Cir. 2011), cert denied, 

132 S. Ct. 366 (2011); Oregon Nat’l Desert Assoc. v. Tidwell, 716 F. Supp. 2d 982, 987-88 (D. 

Or. 2010) . Thus, for those claims arising under NEPA and NFMA and the claims arising under 

the ESA challenging final agency action, Plaintiff’s claims are reviewed against the 

administrative record and those documents admitted pursuant to the Ninth Circuit’s wellestablished exceptions. For those claims arising under the substantive provisions of the ESA, 

Plaintiff’s claims are not limited to the administrative record. 

Plaintiff will respond to any motion to strike by the Defendants of any extra-record 

evidence proffered by Plaintiff.

Stipulation

The Parties do not dispute that this Court may rely on the Forest Service’s Administrative 

Record and the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Administrative Record. The Parties, however, do 

 

1

In Lands Council, the Ninth Circuit stated:

We have, however, crafted 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 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.” 

Id. at 1030, citing Southwest Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. United States Forest Serv.,

100 F.3d 1443, 1450 (9th Cir.1996). 

Lands Council, 395 F.3d at 1030.

Case 2:15-cv-00249-WBS-AC Document 43 Filed 12/11/15 Page 4 of 8
LOCAL RULE 260(c) STIPULATION

Conservation Congress v. U.S. Forest Serv., No. 2:15-cv-0249-WBS-AC 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

disagree on whether this Court may consider the extra-record documents. The Parties do not 

believe that this disagreement necessitates separate statements of undisputed and disputed facts. 

Furthermore, Plaintiff has set forth factual background within its Memorandum in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and, therefore, does not believe that a separate 

statement of undisputed facts is necessary.

Granting this stipulation will not cause undue prejudice or harm to the Parties’ respective 

rights or interests because the Parties all respectively agree that the statements of undisputed and 

disputed facts would not advance this case farther than the cross-motions for summary judgment 

will advance this case. Granting this motion will serve the public interest by conserving the 

Court’s and the Parties’ scarce and valuable resources that they would spend preparing and 

reviewing those statements. Denying this stipulation will cause undue prejudice or harm to the 

Parties’ respective rights or interests because the Parties are seeking to complete briefing on their 

cross-motions for summary judgment expeditiously to avoid briefing a motion for a temporary 

restraining order or for a preliminary injunction in spring 2015. Filing lengthy statements could 

delay their brief filings. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Parties respectfully request the Court to waive the Local 

Rule 260(a) and (b) requirements for the Parties to file statements of undisputed and disputed 

facts with their summary judgment motions.

Respectfully submitted on December 9, 2015,

s/ Andrew G. Ogden

Andrew G. Ogden (CA Bar #112384)

Attorney at Law

PO Box 3673

Boulder, CO 80307-3673

(303) 818-9422

aogden@indra.com 

s/ Sean T. Malone

Sean T. Malone (OR Bar # 084060) Pro Hac Vice

259 E.5th Ave, Ste200-G 

Eugene, OR 97401

Tel: (303) 859-0403

Case 2:15-cv-00249-WBS-AC Document 43 Filed 12/11/15 Page 5 of 8
LOCAL RULE 260(c) STIPULATION

Conservation Congress v. U.S. Forest Serv., No. 2:15-cv-0249-WBS-AC 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

Fax: (650) 471-7366

seanmalone8@hotmail.com

Attorneys for Conservation Congress

JOHN C. CRUDEN

Assistant Attorney General

/s/ Jeremy Hessler

JEREMY HESSLER, CA Bar No. 281462

Trial Attorney

Wildlife and Marine Resources Section

JARED S. PETTINATO, MT Bar No. 7434

Trial Attorney

Natural Resources Section

Environment and Natural Resources Division

United States Department of Justice

P.O. Box 7611

Washington, D.C. 20044-7611

(202) 305-0431 (Hessler) | (202) 305-0203 (Pettinato)

(202) 353-0506 (fax)

Jeremy.Hessler@usdoj.gov

Jared.Pettinato@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Federal Defendants

Of Counsel:

Ritu Ahuja

Attorney

Office of the General Counsel

United States Department of Agriculture

San Francisco, California

Case 2:15-cv-00249-WBS-AC Document 43 Filed 12/11/15 Page 6 of 8
LOCAL RULE 260(c) STIPULATION

Conservation Congress v. U.S. Forest Serv., No. 2:15-cv-0249-WBS-AC 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

Andrew G. Ogden (CA Bar # 112384)

Attorney at Law

PO Box 3673

Boulder, CO 80307-3673

(303) 818-9422

aogden@indra.com

Sean Malone (OR Bar # 084060) Pro Hac Vice

259 E.5th Ave, Ste200-G 

Eugene, OR 97401

Tel: (303) 859-0403

Fax: (650) 471-7366

seanmalone8@hotmail.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CONSERVATION CONGRESS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE and 

UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE 

SERVICE

Defendants,

1.No. 2:15-cv-249-WBS-AC 

Senior Judge William B. Shubb

ORDER ON LOCAL RULE 260(c) 

STIPULATION, STIPULATION TO 

WAIVE THE REMAINING LOCAL RULE 

260(a) AND (b) REQUIREMENTS

The Parties’ Local Rule 260(c) Stipulation to waive the Local Rule 260(a) and (b) 

requirements for the Parties to file statements of undisputed and disputed facts with their 

summary judgment motions is hereby ALLOWED.

Dated: December 10, 2015

Case 2:15-cv-00249-WBS-AC Document 43 Filed 12/11/15 Page 7 of 8
LOCAL RULE 260(c) STIPULATION

Conservation Congress v. U.S. Forest Serv., No. 2:15-cv-0249-WBS-AC 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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on December 9, 2015, I electronically filed the foregoing with the 

Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to all 

parties. 

s/ Sean T. Malone

Sean T. Malone

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 2:15-cv-00249-WBS-AC Document 43 Filed 12/11/15 Page 8 of 8