Center For Biological Diversity et al v. Federal Highway Administration et al

Filing 122

ORDER RESOLVING MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 2/8/13. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/8/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, et al., 10 No. C 12-02172 JSW 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court Plaintiffs, 12 ORDER RESOLVING MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, 13 (Docket No. 107) Intervenor-Plaintiff, 14 v. 15 16 17 FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, et al., Defendants. / 18 19 This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of the motion to supplement the 20 Administrative Records, filed by Plaintiffs and the Intervenor-Plaintiff (collectively 21 “Plaintiffs”). The Court has considered the parties’ papers, the stipulations submitted by the 22 parties, relevant legal authority, and the record in this case, and it finds the motion suitable for 23 disposition without oral argument. See N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). The Court VACATES the 24 hearing set for February 22, 2013. 25 The parties have largely resolved their issues by way of stipulation. (See Docket Nos. 26 116, 120.) With respect to the Administrative Record submitted by the California Department 27 of Transportation and Malcolm Dougherty (collectively “Caltrans”), Plaintiffs identified 28 fourteen categories of documents, which they contended should be included in the 1 Administrative Record. The only remaining dispute is how to treat documents in categories 1, 2 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 14, that Caltrans has not yet located. diligently search for, and if they still exist and are not already within the record, add” the 5 documents described in those categories to the Administrative Record. (Docket No. 118, 6 Response at 2:21-23.) The Plaintiffs state that they “appreciate Caltrans’ willingness to 7 conditionally include the documents,” but are not able to stipulate to “inclusion of the 8 documents in the record based solely on Caltrans’ due diligence in locating the documents.” 9 (Docket No. 121, Reply at 1:12-14.) Thus, Plaintiffs ask the Court to Order Caltrans that the 10 documents be included in the record and, “[i]f Caltrans is then unable to locate the documents, 11 For the Northern District of California Caltrans offered to resolve this issue by a stipulation that states it would “agree to 4 United States District Court 3 it can make such a showing to the Court in a later filing, giving the parties an opportunity to 12 address that contingency if and when it occurs.” (Id. at 1:15-17.) 13 The Court does not understand Caltrans’ position to be a “conditional” offer to include 14 the documents. The only question is whether or not the documents exist or are already in the 15 record. Therefore, Caltrans shall, after conducting a diligent search and inquiry for all 16 documents in these categories, supplement the record by no later than March 8, 2013. At that 17 time, Caltrans shall conclusively identify any documents within those categories that it has not 18 been able to locate and which are not already in the record. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 8, 2013 JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?