Pit River Tribe et al v. Bureau of Land Management et al

Filing 110

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 10/07/21 GRANTING 96 Motion for Reconsideration; GRANTING Calpine's 85 request for a protective order and REVERSES the 95 Magistrate Judge's ruling on the issue.(Benson, A.)

Case 2:19-cv-02483-JAM-AC Document 110 Filed 10/07/21 Page 1 of 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13
14
15
16

PIT RIVER TRIBE; NATIVE
COALITION FOR MEDICINE LAKE
HIGHLANDS DEFENSE; MOUNT
SHASTA BIOREGIONAL ECOLOGY
CENTER; and MEDICINE LAKE
CITIZENS FOR QUALITY
ENVIRONMENT,

17
18
19
20
21

No.

2:19-cv-02483-JAM-AC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT
CALPINE’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

Plaintiffs,
v.
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT;
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
THE INTERIOR; CALPINE
CORPORATION; and CPN
TELEPHONE FLAT, INC.,

22

Defendants.

23
24

Before this Court is Defendant Calpine’s request for

25

reconsideration (“Mot.”), ECF No. 96, of the Magistrate Judge’s

26

ruling denying Calpine’s motion for protective order (“Order”),

27

ECF No. 95.

28

the Magistrate Judges ruling and grant the motion for protective

Calpine requests the Court overrule that portion of

1

Case 2:19-cv-02483-JAM-AC Document 110 Filed 10/07/21 Page 2 of 3
1

order.

For the reasons stated below the Court GRANTS Calpine’s

2

request.1

3
4

I.

OPINION

5

A.

Legal Standard

6

When reviewing a party’s objection to a non-dispositive

7

pretrial ruling by a magistrate judge, the district court must

8

“modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly

9

erroneous or contrary to law.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

The

10

district court reviews the magistrate’s factual determinations

11

and discretionary decisions under the “clearly erroneous”

12

standard, while the “contrary to law” standard “allows

13

independent plenary review of purely legal determinations by the

14

magistrate judge.”

15

18-cv-01359-AWI-SKO, 2020 WL 2539292 at *5 (May 19, 2020).

Sung Gon Kang v. Bureau Connection, Inc.,

16

B.

Analysis

17

The statutory language of § 706(1) states that “the court

18

shall review the whole record or those parts of it cited by a

19

party [. . .]” when reviewing cases under that section.

20

5 U.S.C. § 706(1).

21

administrative record.

22

470 U.S. 729, 743-44 (1985).

23

The “whole record” language references the
See Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Lorion,

Review of the Government’s actions, or inaction, is limited

24

to the administrative record compiled by the agency, subject to

25

some exceptions.

See Seattle Aubudon Society v. Norton, No.

26
27
28

This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without
oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was scheduled
for August 24, 2021.
2
1

Case 2:19-cv-02483-JAM-AC Document 110 Filed 10/07/21 Page 3 of 3
1

C05-1835L, 2006 WL 1518895 at *3 (W.D. Wash. May 25, 2006)

2

(noting the administrative record is a presumptive limitation of

3

scope for discovery in a 706(1) action). Plaintiffs have failed

4

to convince this Court that any exceptions should be applied

5

here.

6

unnecessary.

7

for a protective order and reverses the Magistrate Judge’s

8

ruling on the issue.

Thus, any discovery from Calpine is unwarranted and
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Calpine’s request

9
10
11

II.

ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Calpine’s

12

Motion for Reconsideration.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated: October 7, 2021

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3