IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

EUGENE DIVISION 

KELSEY CASCADIA ROSE JULIANA, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., 

Defendants. 

AIKEN, Judge: 

Case No. 6:15-cv-01517-AA 

OPINION AND ORDER 

Plaintiffs move this Court to take judicial notice of some 3 86 purported federal 

government documents. 1 2 (doc. 254) Federal defendants do not object to the Court taking 

notice of the existence and authenticity of 286 of those documents. They offer specific 

objections to 42 of documents, while taking no position on the remaining 58. Federal defendants 

1 Plaintiffs' have also filed a second motion in limine (doc. 340) seeking judicial notice of 

other various documents. Given the later date at which it was filed, a separate order will issue 

disposing of the motion. 

2 The documents in question have been filed as exhibits and can be found at docs. 270 

and 299. An appendix of all the documents can be found on the docket at doc. 254-1. 

Page 1 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 368 Filed 10/15/18 Page 1 of 6
contend that the Court should only take judicial notice of the 286 documents to which they 

specifically do not object. 

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, judicial notice may be taken at any stage in the 

proceedings. Fed. R. Evid. 201(±). The "court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to 

reasonable dispute because it: (1) is generally known within the trial court's territorial 

jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot 

reasonably be questioned." Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). 

Judicial notice may be taken of "[p ]ublic records and government documents available 

from reliable sources on the Internet, such as websites run by governmental agencies." Callister 

v. Owen, 2017 WL 1499224, at *2 (D. Idaho 2017) (citing to US. ex rel. Modglin v. DJO Glob. 

Inc., 48 F. Supp.3d 1362, 3181 (C.D. Cal. 2014)); also Daniels-Hall v. Nat'! Educ. Assoc., 629 

F.3d 992, 999 (9th Cir.2010) (taking judicial notice of information on the websites of two school 

districts because they were government entities); United States ex rel. Dingle v. BioPort 

Corp., 270 F. Supp. 2d 968, 972 (W.D. Mich. 2003) ("Public records 

and government documents are generally considered not to be subject to reasonable dispute .... 

This includes public records and government documents available from reliable sources on the 

Internet.") (Internal citations omitted)). When the court takes notice of a public record, including 

websites, it does so "not for the truth of the facts recited therein, but for the existence of the 

[record] which is not subject to reasonable dispute over its authenticity." Vesta Corp. v. Amdocs 

Management Ltd., 129 F.Supp. 3d 1012, 1021 (D. Or. 2015) (internal citations omitted). 

Courts may take notice of website content and press releases, for example, when they are 

"matters of public record." Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688-89 (9th Cir. 2009). The 

Ninth Circuit defines "public records" under Fed. R. Evid. 201 to include "records and reports of 

Page 2 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 368 Filed 10/15/18 Page 2 of 6
administrative bodies." US. v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 909 (9th Cir. 2003) 

(citing Interstate Nat. Gas Co. v. S. Cal. Gas Co., 209 F.2d 380, 385 (9th Cir. 1953)). But, when 

the court takes notice of a public record, including websites, it does so "not for the truth of the 

facts recited therein, but for the existence of the [record] which is not subject to reasonable 

dispute over its authenticity." Vesta Corp. v, 129 F. Supp.3d at 1021. (internal citations omitted). 

Generally, "courts are hesitant to take notice of information found on third party websites and 

routinely deny requests for judicial notice, particularly when the credibility of the site's source 

information is called into question by another party." Gerritsen v. Warner Bros. Entm't Inc., 112 

F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1028 (C.D. Cal. 2015). 

Initially, the Court notes that plaintiffs have elected withdraw the following documents: 

Exs. 51, 55, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 128,278,282,283,284,286,293, 301,322,323, 324, 325, 327, 

360, 384. Deel. of Rodgers at if 4, Ex. 2. Federal defendants offer specific objections to the 

following documents provided by plaintiffs: Exs. 4, 6, 7, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 24, 29, 100, 102, 

107, 110, 129, 130, 249, 250, 251, 299, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 316, 326, 334, 338, 

343, 350, and 354. Federal defendants also take no position regarding the following documents: 

Exs. 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 11, 21, 22, 28, 32, 33, 34, 37, 39, 43, 72, 74, 76, 80, 94, 108, 114, 116, 160, 

162, 164, 167, 182, 184, 191, 193, 209, 211, 252, 268, 269, 287, 295, 298, 314, 319, 363, 377, 

and 378. 

The Court takes judicial notice of the 286 documents to which federal defendants do not 

specifically object. In their briefing, plaintiffs provide uniform record location ("URL") 

addresses from government run websites for some of the documents to which federal defendants 

do not stipulate. See Exs. 2, 5, 6, 7, 18, 21, 33, 37, 74, 76, 160, 162, 164, 167, 184, 250, 251 

Page 3 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 368 Filed 10/15/18 Page 3 of 6
252, 268, 287, 295, 310, 319, 363, 377, 378. Accordingly, the Court finds those documents to be 

from reliable sources and takes judicial notice of them. 

After examining the contested documents and URL addresses provided by plaintiffs, the 

Court finds that the following documents are from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be 

questioned and thus are proper subjects for judicial notice. Ex. 1, 17, 28 are government 

documents digitized by the HathiTrust and hosted on its public website. HathiTrust is a 

partnership of major research institutions and libraries, including some of the most well 

respected universities in the country, which hosts a repository of digital content from research 

libraries. https://www.hathitrust.org/about. The Court finds this source reasonably reliable. 

Accordingly, the Court takes notice of these documents. 

Exs. 43, 114, 116, 191, 193, 209, 211 are various Congressional Research Service 

("CRS") reports hosted on the Federation of American Scientists public website. Ex. 298 is also 

a CRS report, but is hosted on a separate website. Other courts in and out of this circuit have 

taken judicial notice of CRS reports. See Johnson v. Ashley Furniture Indus., Inc., 2014 WL 

6892173, at *1 (S.D. Cal. 2014); United States ex rel. RBC Four Co., LLC v. Walt Disney Co., 

2013 WL 12131741, at *4 n.4 (C.D. Cal. 2013); See also Dine Citizens Against Ruining Our 

Env't v. Jewell, 2015 WL 4997207, at *5 (D.N.M. 2015), ajfd, 839 F.3d 1276 (10th Cir. 2016) 

(citing directly to CRS reports hosted on the Federation of American Scientists' public website). 

Following that persuasive authority, the Court takes judicial of the CRS reports offered here. 

Ex. 4 is a government report available from the Jimmy Carter Presidential Library at 

https://www.Hmmycarterlibrary.gov/digital library/sso/148878/31/SSO 148878 031 07.pdf. 

Ex. 13 is a government document available on the public website of the National Academy of the 

Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine which was created by an act of Congress to provide 

Page 4 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 368 Filed 10/15/18 Page 4 of 6
scientific expertise to the United States Government. Exs. 19 and 129 are the same government 

document which is available from the National Security Archive hosted George Washington 

University and which was obtained pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act request from the 

United States State Department. Ex. 22 is a government document made available through 

DigitalGeorgetown, a repository service offered and administered by the Georgetown University 

Library. Ex. 32 is the text of a speech given by President George W. Bush and is available at 

https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/02/20020214-5.html. Ex. 34 

is a government document available from a government website located at https://pe 

rmanent.access.gpo.gov/lps94771/20071210101633.pdf. Ex. 39 is a government document 

available online at the Homeland Security Digital Library ("HSDL"). HDSL is sponsored by the 

United States Department of Homeland Security's National Preparedness Directorate, Federal 

Emergence Management Agency, and the Naval Postgraduate School Center for Homeland 

Defense and Security. Ex. 72 is a CRS report available from the National Agricultural Law 

Center, which a federally funded nonpartisan research center hosted at the University of 

Arkansas. Ex. 94 is a report from National Resource Council made available from the 

publishing arm of National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. Ex. 102 is a 

CNBC news interview with current Secretary of Energy Rick Perry,\ and it is an acceptable news 

report for judicial notice. See Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 

954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010) ("Courts may take judicial notice of publications introduced to 'indicate 

what was in the public realm at the time, not whether the contents of those articles were in fact 

true."'). 

The Court was unable to access Exs. 305, 306, 308, 309, and 311 through the url 

addresses provided by plaintiffs. However, these are government reports available through the 

Page 5 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 368 Filed 10/15/18 Page 5 of 6
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers public website and can be viewed at 

https ://usace. contentdm. oclc. org/utils/ getfile/ co llecti on/p 16021co112/id/2668 %2 0, https ://usace. 

contentdm.oclc. org/utils/ getfile/ collection/p 16021coll2/id/1829, http:// cwbi-ndc-nav. s3-websiteus-east-1.amazonaws.com/ports.html. Ex. 307 is a government report and can found on a 

government website at https://www.bts.gov/sites/bts.dot.gov/files/docs/browse-statisticalproducts-and-data/port-performance/216906/port-performance-2017-revised-2-12-18 .pdf). Ex. 

314 is also a government report which the Court found available on a government website at 

https :// o bamawhitehouse.archives. gov I sites/ default/files/ docs/2015 national security strategy 2 

.pdf. 

After review, the Court does not take notice of Exs. 9, 11, 20, 24, 29, 80, 100, 107, 108, 

110, 130, 299, 316, 326, 334, 338, 343, 350. Plaintiffs have either not yet provided an adequate 

foundation as to the authenticity of these remaining documents, or they are not available on the 

internet at a reliable source. As such, they are not appropriate for judicial notice at this time. 

CONCLUSION 

Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine (doc. 254) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED in part as 

outlined in this opinion. Plaintiffs remain free to seek to introduce these exhibits at trial 

consistent with the Federal Rules of Evidence. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated this~ of October 2018. 

L~ A:n;-Aiken 

United States District Judge 

Page 6 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 368 Filed 10/15/18 Page 6 of 6