Opinion ID: 2745483
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Frontier Fishing's Procedural Complaints

Text: Before addressing the substance of Frontier Fishing's arguments on the matter of Settler's location, we address two procedural arguments preserved by Frontier Fishing and pressed on appeal. 1. Refusal to Supplement the Administrative Record During discovery prior to the very first hearing, NOAA produced to Frontier Fishing a one-page document that consisted of a single handwritten entry on a form like the Coast Guard's radar tracking log form. Dated October 16, 1997, with a time entry of 10:19, the document listed a track of 8174, remarks of Settler Pts and navigation data that Frontier Fishing's expert claimed shows contact 8174 at 22:19 located well inside the restricted area and a long way off from where Settler was admittedly located post-intercept by Spencer. Due to the passage of -8- time, discovery shed no light on what exactly this document was, or who created it. At the first hearing, in August 2001, Frontier Fishing did not offer this document into evidence. Subsequently, it sought to introduce it in its first appeal to the district court. The district court rejected the attempt to supplement the record before the court. Frontier Fishing, 429 F. Supp. 2d at 325. In remanding, however, the district court did not preclude such further development of the record . . . as appears advisable to the ALJ. Id. at 335. ALJ Devine denied Frontier Fishing's request to supplement the record compiled at the first hearing by adding Exhibit 15. The ALJ questioned the relevance of the document, noting that it was unsigned and was not annotated in standard form. Most significantly, the document could not have any relevance unless the time entry of 10:19 were construed as 10:19 p.m. (i.e., 22:19), which would suggest no one accustomed to use of military time on such documents wrote it. Finally, the ALJ observed that Frontier Fishing had a full and fair opportunity to offer the document at the original hearing, and did not do so. In so ruling, the ALJ did not abuse the discretion left to him on remand. His observations regarding the questionable materiality and provenance of the document speak for themselves. Frontier Fishing fails, also, to offer any good cause for why it -9- did not offer the document at the first hearing, claiming only negligence by prior counsel (whom the ALJ found to have presented a vigorous defense). 2. Denial of Request for Additional Discovery Frontier Fishing argues on appeal that the NOAA and the district court erred in denying requests for additional discovery. We disturb a district court's management of discovery 'only upon a clear showing of manifest injustice, that is, where the lower court's discovery order was plainly wrong and resulted in substantial prejudice to the aggrieved party.' Olsen v. United States, 414 F.3d 144, 156 (1st Cir. 2005) (quoting Mack v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 871 F.2d 179, 186 (1st Cir. 1989)). Generally, further discovery is not allowed in an action for judicial review upon an administrative record for the same reasons that supplementation is generally not permitted. Id. at 155-56. It is almost inherent in the idea of reviewing agency or other administrative action for reasonableness; how could an administrator act unreasonably by ignoring information never presented to it? Liston v. Unum Corp. Officer Severance Plan, 330 F.3d 19, 23 (1st Cir. 2003). As for NOAA's denial of additional discovery, the applicable agency rule gave the ALJ the discretion to allow additional discovery only upon a showing of relevance, need, and reasonable scope of the evidence sought. 15 C.F.R. § 904.240(b). For the reasons stated by the ALJ and the district -10- court, we find that this is not one of those unusual cases in which a district court or an agency must allow additional discovery. Frontier Fishing (1) was given ample opportunity to conduct reasonable discovery throughout the various administrative proceedings; (2) was able to move for summary judgment without the information it now seeks through further discovery; and (3) received all of the information the agency used to make its determination. Frontier Fishing Corp., 429 F. Supp. 2d at 326.