Opinion ID: 2293877
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Denial of Motion to Develop Additional Evidence Regarding Possible Bias of Certain Witnesses

Text: [¶ 62] NRCM contends that the court abused its discretion when it denied its motion, pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 80C(e), to develop additional evidence of undisclosed bias among certain intervenors. NRCM contends that it did not become aware of  the depth of Plum Creek's financial association with other intervenors until after the filing of the Rule 80C appeal. We review the court's ruling for an abuse of discretion. Hale-Rice v. Me. State Ret. Sys., 1997 ME 64, ¶ 16, 691 A.2d 1232. [¶ 63] The Maine Administrative Procedure Act permits a reviewing court to order the taking of additional evidence in certain situations: The reviewing court may order the taking of additional evidence before the agency if it finds that additional evidence... is necessary to deciding the petition for review; or if application is made to the reviewing court for leave to present additional evidence, and it is shown that the additional evidence is material to the issues presented in the review, and could not have been presented or was erroneously disallowed in proceedings before the agency. 5 M.R.S. § 11006(1)(B) (2011). In its motion, Forest Ecology Network requested the opportunity to develop additional evidence about payments Plum Creek made to supporters that allowed the supporters to intervene in the proceedings and consequently prejudiced Forest Ecology Network by stack[ing] the deck with intervenors friendly to Plum Creek. NRCM joined in Forest Ecology Network's motion, asserting that [i]f there were party-intervenors in this case whose participation in the proceedings were made possible by virtue of Plum Creek's financing those entities, and paying for their witnesses' time, the record must reflect that financial support. [¶ 64] In its decision, the court correctly noted that these issues were raised during the proceedings before LURC, and LURC was aware of the allegiances at issue. Parties on both sides of the issue raised concerns about funding several times during the administrative proceedings. Most importantly, Forest Ecology Network and NRCM did not assert that LURC denied them the opportunity to pursue this issue as part of the administrative process. As such, Rule 80C(e) does not afford them a fresh opportunity to present evidence on this issue. As we have stated: Rule 80C(e) applies when evidence that is not part of the record, and could not have been made a part of the record by the propounding party, is relevant to a determination before the court. It is not available to present evidence that the applicant should have presented to the agency.... York Hosp. v. Dep't of Human Servs., 2005 ME 41, ¶ 20, 869 A.2d 729. [¶ 65] The court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to develop additional evidence. The entry is: The judgment's determination that Land Use Regulation Commission disregarded its procedural rules and engaged in an unauthorized, ad hoc procedure is vacated. The judgment is affirmed in all other respects. Remanded to the Business and Consumer Docket for entry of judgment affirming the September 23, 2009 decision of the Land Use Regulation Commission.