Golden Gate Salmon Association, et al. v. Ross, et al.

Filing 59

ORDER RESOLVING REMAINING ISSUE RE MOTION TO COMPLETE THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on July 13, 2018. (Munoz, I)

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10
11

GOLDEN GATE SALMON ASSOCIATION,
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE
COUNCIL, INC., DEFENDERS OF
WILDLIFE, BAY.ORG d/b/a THE BAY
INSTITUTE,

Case No. 1:17-cv-01172 LJO-EPG
ORDER RESOLVING REMAINING
ISSUE RE MOTION TO COMPLETE
THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
(ECF NO. 42)

Plaintiffs,
12
13
14
15
16
17

vs.
WILBUR ROSS, in his official capacity as
Secretary of Commerce, CHRIS OLIVER, in
his official capacity as Assistant Administrator
for Fisheries at the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration; and
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES
SERVICE,
Defendants.

18
19

Plaintiffs’ moved to include certain additional documents in the administrative record (“AR”).

20 ECF No. 42. On June 22, 2019, the Court issued a 25-page ruling resolving all but one issue raised in
21 Plaintiffs’ motion. ECF No. 53. The remaining issue concerns whether the National Marine Fisheries
22 Service (“NMFS”) should be required to include in the AR “absolute” model runs from the Winter-Run
23 Life Cycle Model. NMFS’s Central Valley Office Branch Chief insisted in opposition to the motion that
24 no absolute model runs existed. ECF No. 45-2 at 4-5. Plaintiffs pointed to sections of the relevant
25 decision document that called into question this assertion, and the Court ordered NMFS to file a

1

1

supplemental declaration clarifying how NMFS could reach the conclusions set forth in the decision

2

document without absolute model results. ECF No. 53 at 13.

3

In response, NMFS indicated:
Upon reviewing the documents in the record in order to comply with the
Court’s June 22, 2018 Order and further discussing the issue with the
modeling team, Ms. Marcinkevage discovered that absolute results were
produced. Supplemental Marcinkevage Decl. ¶ 4. In light of the recent
discovery of absolute results, Federal Defendants’ arguments regarding
absolute results are no longer accurate and Federal Defendants withdraw
those statements.

4
5
6
7
8

ECF No. 55. Given this statement, the Court ORDERS that the absolute model results be added to the

9

AR by the deadlines set forth in the June 22, 2018 Order.

10

The matter does not end there, however. This admission reveals a problem of serious concern to

11 the Court, which utilized substantial and scarce resources to evaluate carefully the parties’ arguments
12 regarding the absolute model results. Understanding that these issues are technically complex and that
13 agency staff may too be overburdened, this Court simply does not have the time to step in to resolve
14 matters the parties should be able to work out on their own. If in the future (in this or any related case)
15 the Court believes the parties are not doing the hard work required to present only matters that are truly
16 in dispute, it will not hesitate to issue an order to show cause re Rule 11 sanctions. If thereafter such a
17 finding is made, the result will be expensive for the offending party and attorney.
18
19 IT IS SO ORDERED.
20

Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

July 13, 2018

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
21
22
23
24
25

2