Pacific Choice Seafood Company et al v. Pritzker et al

Filing 36

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. DENYING DEFENDANTS' 23 MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/19/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

PACIFIC CHOICE SEAFOOD COMPANY,
et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
v.

9
10

PENNY PRITZKER, et al.,

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS'
MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
Re: Dkt. No. 23

Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 15-cv-05572-HSG

12
On February 2, 2016, Defendants filed a motion to extend time to file an administrative

13
14

record under 16 U.S.C. § 1855(f). Dkt. No. 23. Plaintiffs opposed Defendants’ motion on

15

February 5, 2016. Dkt. No. 26. For the following reasons, the Court hereby DENIES Defendants’

16

motion.

17

I.

LEGAL STANDARD
Federal regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Department of Commerce are

18
19

subject to timely requests for judicial review. 16 U.S.C. § 1855(f)(1). Under 16 U.S.C.

20

§ 1855(f)(3), “the Secretary shall file a response to any petition” that “shall include a copy of the

21

administrative record for the regulations that are the subject of the petition” “not later than 45 days

22

after the date the Secretary is served with that petition.” 16 U.S.C. § 1855(f)(3). The Court may

23

extend the deadline to file the administrative record “for good cause.” Id.

24

II.

DISCUSSION

25

Defendants assert that good cause to extend the deadline exists here because Defendants

26

have filed a motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 45 at ¶ 3. However, Defendants failed to comply with

27

Civil Local Rule 6-3, which requires a declaration setting forth the reasons for the requested

28

enlargement of time and identifying the substantial harm or prejudice that would occur if the Court

1

does not grant the motion. See Civ. L. R. 6-3.
Moreover, Defendants’ Motion to Extend Time contains no allegations to support a finding

2
3

that production of the administrative record here is more burdensome than in any other action

4

challenging the Secretary’s promulgations. See Dkt. No. 23. Defendants essentially ask this

5

Court to declare that in any action in which the Secretary files a motion to dismiss, the

6

government need not comply with the requirements of 16 U.S.C. § 1855(f)(3) in order “to

7

conserve[e] limited agency resources.” See id. ¶ 4. This cannot be correct given Congress’s clear

8

direction that the Court “shall expedite the matter in every possible way.” 16 U.S.C. § 1855(f)(4).
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion to Extend Time.

9
10

III.

CONCLUSION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

For the aforementioned reasons, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to extend time to

12

file the administrative record. Because Defendants waited until the 45-day time period to file the

13

administrative record had run before bringing this motion, see Dkt. No. 23, Defendants should

14

have already gathered the administrative record in anticipation of production. As such,

15

Defendants shall file an answer that includes the administrative record within 7 days of this Order.

16
17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 19, 2016
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2