Opinion ID: 1189865
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Consideration of Documents Outside the Pleading

Text: The district court also did not abuse its discretion in taking judicial notice of the Department of Energy National Transmission Grid Study (May 2002) (DOE Study), which was not included in the pleadings, and referring to it as background material in its order granting the government's motion for judgment on the pleadings. See Ritter v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 58 F.3d 454, 458 (9th Cir.1995) (An appellate court reviews the district court's decision to take judicial notice under Rule 201 for an abuse of discretion.). Although, as a general rule, a district court may not consider materials not originally included in the pleadings in deciding a Rule 12 motion, Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(d), it may take judicial notice of matters of public record and consider them without converting a Rule 12 motion into one for summary judgment. Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688 (9th Cir.2001) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Judicial notice is appropriate for records and reports of administrative bodies. Interstate Natural Gas Co. v. S. Cal. Gas Co., 209 F.2d 380, 385 (9th Cir. 1953). The district court considered the DOE Study, which is clearly a report[ ] of[an] administrative bod[y]. Id. Further, it referred to the report only as background material, without relying on it to resolve any factual dispute. We therefore conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in taking judicial notice of the DOE Study for the limited purpose for which the court considered it.