# In th e United States Court of Federal Cl aims

No. 10-757C (F iled: May

29, 2014)

************************************* GADSDEN I

NDUSTRI A LPARK, L L C, * * Plaintiff, * Motion to Strike or Stay Action on EPA * I nformation Request L e tter; CERCL A; v. * APA; Ex clusive J urisdiction in F ederal * District Courts THE UNI TED STATES, * * Defendant. * *************************************
Avrum L e vicoff, Pittsburg h, PA, for plaintiff. David A. Harrington, United States Department of J ustice, W ashing ton, DC, for defendant.
ORDER DENYING

MOTION TO STRIK E EP A INF ORMATION REQUEST LETTER
SWEENEY , J udg e Until recently , proceeding s in the above-captioned case were stay ed pendingthe parties’ participation in the court’s alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”) prog ram. An ADR conference was held on April 1, 2014, during which the parties concluded that settlement was not possible at that time. According ly , the stay of proceeding s was lifted. I n the meantime, on March 24, 2014, the United States Environmental Protection Ag ency (“EPA”) sent a “General Notice/I nformation Request L etter” to plaintiff pertaining to the property at issue in this case–the Gulf States Steel Superfund Site. I n that letter, the EPA notified plaintiff of its potential liability for costs incurred at the site pursuant to section 107(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and L iability Act of 1980 (“CERCL A”), and requested that plaintiff respond to the enclosed request for information pursuant to section 104(e) of CERCL A. Plaintiff now moves to strike the EPA’s information request letter or, in the alternative, stay action on the EPA’s request for information. Plaintiff arg ues that by

issuing the letter, the EPA is attempting to “usurp[ ] the jurisdiction of this Court to manag e matters that are in controversy

in this case” and “preempt the orderly conduct of discovery .” Mot. 3. Plaintiff further contends that there is no basis under section 104(e) of CERCL A for the EPA to issue the letter because the EPA has had, for the past twelve y ears, ready

access to the information it seeks. Defendant opposes plaintiff’s motion, arg uing that the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a challeng e to an administrative request made pursuant to section 104(e) of CERCL A, and that theex istence of civil litig ation does not remove a federal g overnment ag e ncy ’s “statutory authority to request and obtain information.” Resp. 1. Defendant is correct.
W ithout question, the UnitedStates Court of F e deral Claims (“Court of F ederal Claims”), like all other federal courts, has broad discretion to manage and control the litig ation before it. See, e.g ., L ink v. W abash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) (remarking on “the control necessarily

vested in courts to manag e their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and ex p editious disposition of cases”); Amado v. Microsoft Corp., 517 F

. 3d 1353, 1358 (F e d. Cir. 2008) (noting that federal district courts “are afforded broad discretion to control and manag e their dockets”); Univ. of W . Va. B d. of Trs. v. VanVoorhies, 278 F .3d 1288, 1295 (F ed. Cir. 2002) (“This court defers to the judg ment of the trial court on matters closely associated with the standard functions of the adjudicative process, as long as that judg ment is not an abuse of the trial court’s discretion.”); B eatrice F oods Co. v. New Eng . Printing & L ithog raphing Co., 899 F .2d 1171, 1177 (F ed. Cir. 1990) (“A trial court has broad discretionary authority in manag ing the litig ation before it . . . .”). This discretion, however, does not ex tend to issues beyond its jurisdiction. Section 113 of CERCL A provides that federal district courts, ex cept in limited circumstances not pertinent here, “have ex clusive orig inal jurisdiction over all controversies arising under” CERCL A. 42 U.S.C. § 9613(b) (2006); see also Tarrant v. United States, 71 F e d. Cl. 554, 556 (2006) (“The ex ceptions . . . pertain to review of EPA’s actions in promulg ating rules, respecting

which review is assig ned to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and to specifically

enumerated actions under Sections 9606, 9607, and 9659 of CERCL A, as to which jurisdiction is variously

assig ned to district courts.” (citation omitted)). The EPA sent its information request letter to plaintiff pursuant to section 104(e) of CERCL A, meaningthat any dispute concerning

the letter is a dispute that arises under CERCL A. Thus, under the plain lang uag e of CERCL A, plaintiff’s challeng e to the EPA’s information request letter must be broug ht in a federal district court. See Tarrant, 71 F ed. Cl. at 556-57; B assett, N.M. L L C v. United States, 55 F ed. Cl. 63, 68 (2002); Am. L ifesty le Homes, Inc. v. United States, 17 Cl. Ct. 711, 715 (1989); see also L edford v. United States, 297 F .3d 1378, 1382 (F e d. Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (noting

that the Court of F ederal Claims is not a federal district court). The court is also precluded from entertaining plaintiff’s challeng e to the EPA’s information request letter because plaintiff’s challeng e falls within the confines of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). The APA provides for judicial review of ag ency actions. 5 U.S.C. § 702 (2012). However, the Court of F ederal Claims “lacks the g eneral federal question jurisdiction of the district courts, which would allow it to review the ag ency ’s actions and g rant relief pursuant to the [ APA] .” Crocker v. United States, 125 F .3d 1475, 1476 (F ed. Cir. 1997); accord Century Ex ploration New Orleans, LL C v. United States, 745 F .3d 1168, 1179-80 (F ed. Cir. 2014); L ion Raisins, I nc. v. United States, 416 F

. 3d 1356, 1370 n.11 (F ed. Cir. 2005).

-2-F inally , plaintiff has cited no leg al authority for the proposition that a civil suit broug ht in

the Court of F ederal Claims precludes the EPA from requesting information, outside of the civil suit, pursuant to CERCL A.
I n sum, because the court lacks the authority to entertain plaintiff’s challeng e to the EPA’s information request letter, plaintiff’s motion is DENIED

. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Marg aret M. Sweeney MARGARET M. SW EENEY J udg e

-3-