Water Supply and Storage Company, The v. United States Department of Agriculture et al
Filing
49
ORDER Granting WSSC's Motion for Limited Discovery, Doc. 38 , by Judge John L. Kane on 11/15/12. (sgrim)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge John L. Kane
Civil Action No. 11-cv-02896-JLK
THE WATER SUPPLY AND STORAGE COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
TOM VILSAK, in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of
Agriculture, MARIBETH GUSTAFSON, in her official capacity as Regional Forester for the
Rocky Mountain Region of the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service,
GLENN P. CASAMASSA, in his official capacity as Forest Supervisor of the Arapaho and
Roosevelt National Forest and Pawnee National Grassland, United States Department of
Agriculture Forest Service, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR,
KEN SALAZAR, in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of
Interior, UNITED STATES PARK SERVICE, JOHN WESSELS, in his official capacity as
Director, Intermountain Region, United States National Park Service,
Respondents,
and,
COLORADO TROUT UNLIMITED,
Defendant Intervenor.
ORDER GRANTING WSSC’s MOTION for LIMITED DISCOVERY, DOC. 38
Kane, J.
Before me is Petitioner’s Motion for Order Authorizing Limited Discovery (Doc.38).1
The underlying case challenges agency action requiring Petitioner to complete a large and
involved Greenback Cutthroat Trout Restoration Project. Petitioner has also filed a Motion to
Supplement and Complete the Administrative Record (Doc. 37).
Petitioner urges me to order limited discovery in this case to ensure that the record is
complete such that I may make a substantial inquiry into the agencies’ decisions and decisionmaking processes fully and appropriately informed. Specifically, Petitioner requests I allow
Petitioner to depose Mr. Kevin Colby, who is, or was, a Landscape Architect with the Forest
Service during relevant decision making times, and Ms. Kristen Sexton, who is, or was, a Forest
Fisheries Biologist who served as a member of the Forest Service Interdisciplinary Team
(“IDT”) and who was also the Forest Service’s primary point of contact for its Final
Environmental Impact Statement preparation. WSSC contends these depositions are necessary
to determine whether Federal Respondents prepared their administrative record (“Record”) in
good faith.
Based on the following facts as presented in Petitioner’s Motion and corroborated by
Petitioner’s attached Exhibits, Exhibit 8 (Doc. 38-8) in particular, I grant Petitioner’s discovery
motion as to both Mr. Colby and Ms. Sexton.
Upon Petitioner’s review of the Record lodged by Defendants, it noted significant gaps in
information relating to the IDT meetings. Most relevant to the instant motion, there are no
minutes for IDT meetings held in August 2005, December 2005, February 2007, and December
2007. Petitioner contacted Defendants to obtain minutes for these meetings, but Defendants
protested that the meetings did not generate notes or other materials because they were
1
Parties refer to themselves as “Plaintiff” and “Federal Respondents,” but because this is an AP
case, their proper appellations are “Petitioner” and “Federal Respondents.”
considered “non-substantive.” As a result of a 2008 FOIA request, however, Petitioner obtained
handwritten notes taken by Mr. Colby that contradict Defendants’ claim that the meetings
concerned only trivial matters (not to mention the fact that these notes, by their very existence,
also show that notes were indeed generated at these meetings). For example, Mr. Colby’s notes
from an August 22, 2005 meeting indicate discussion of an issue that by his own admission is
“key.” His writing observes, “Key issue is ‘naturalness of stream’; scenery (impacts) are
different.” In his notes from a December 2005 meeting, Mr. Colby identifies and discusses four
alternatives under consideration by the Forest Service, reveals a discussion regarding an
easement, and addresses questions surrounding the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of
1976. Most damningly, Mr. Colby’s notes for a December 2007 meeting include this red flag:
“Anticipate FOIA & future litigation & purge files & defrag.” Exhibit 8, Doc. 38-8 [emphasis in
the original].
Petitioner wishes to depose Mr. Colby to question him about the meaning of this note and
whether the Record is, in fact, complete and whether information and documents were “purged”
before development and preparation of the Record now before me. Because much of Mr.
Colby’s handwriting is illegible and he is the person best able to decipher his own handwriting, a
deposition is necessary to allow me to ascertain whether the Record is complete as claimed by
the Defendants.
Defendants suggest that the words “purge” and “defrag” relate merely to the Forest
Service having a record management policy whereby it instructs IDT members “how to manage
records to minimize burdens on themselves and the agency.” Defendants fail to explain,
however, how or why the record management policy applied to the particular documents that
were “purged” or “defraged.” Problematically, without knowing specifically what was “purged”
or “defraged,” we do not know if the scrapped materials were ones suitable for such culling, and
Federal Respondents have produced nothing by way of assurance that the purged/defraged
materials were so suitable. Although the “presumption of regularity” that I apply under §706
might ordinarily lead me to take Federal Respondents word for it that it instructed the purging
and defragging only of irrelevant documents, it is not unreasonable to view with suspicion the
fact that the instruction comes hot on the heels of an advisory warning to “Anticipate FOIA &
future litigation.” 2
On the one hand, there is some sense to the Forest Service’s contention that “It is normal
business and desirable for interdisciplinary teams to delete unneeded files as they progress
through the analysis process. This is important from a records management and FOIA
standpoint as it can be costly and cumbersome for the agency to respond to a FOIA request if
material not germane to a decision is retained.”3 FS8687. On the other hand, we do not want to
encourage the willy-nilly deletion of materials because too wide an acceptance of deletion
practices may encourage decision makers to re-categorize germane materials with which they did
not agree as non-germane for the purpose of disposing of them under the guise of file economy.
That is, once litigation commences, parties may be tempted to selectively re-characterize in a
fashion that most supports the result advocated.
Moreover, Mr. Colby’s notes provide no context for the document management
discussion. Thus, it is possible, for example, that the discussion about document management
2
WSSC challenges the Respondents' actions under NEPA and FLPMA. As these statutes fail to define
or specify the standard of review to be used in examining Respondents' actions, the Administrative
Procedures Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 500, et seq., provides the framework for this appeal. Accordingly, I
must use the standards articulated in the APA in considering the merits of Petitioner’s Motion and apply a
“presumption of regularity” to Respondents’ designated Record.
3
Conceding the sense, I question the timing. One would imagine that such an important policy would
have been explained to the IDT sooner than two years into the process. Another curiosity of timing
present in this matter is that IDT was not instructed about the document management policy until
December 2007 and WSSC’s FOIA request came shortly thereafter in 2008.
was indeed an innocuous, general one about how agency actors should dispose of irrelevant or
redundant materials because these materials would be expensive and burdensome for the agency
to produce in the event of a FOIA request. It is equally conceivable, however, that the catalyst
for the discussion was agency fear that a particular FOIA request was forthcoming and the
agency had in mind a particular set of unflattering materials that it wanted to encourage IDT
members to expunge before it had to hand them over.
Of course, Respondents state that “the agency’s record management instructions were not
intended to lead to the illicit destruction of agency files,” and that statement, if true, spoils the
potential veracity of the second speculative scenario sketched above. All the same, while it may
be perfectly true that the instructions were not intended to lead to the illicit destruction of agency
files, if agency files that should not have been destroyed were in fact destroyed per either a
misunderstanding of the directions by IDT members or per a willful misconception by IDT
members about what the document management policy really purposed, the fact that materials
are missing from the Record is still a problem, regardless of whether the destruction was
deliberate or accidental.
With respect to the proposed deposition of Ms. Sexton, Petitioner shows skepticism over
the fact that at, or after, an IDT meeting on February 15, 2007, Ms. Sexton was assigned the task
of preparing a “rationale for dismissing” “Bill Miller data”. (Exhibit 9, Doc. 38-9). Dr. William
Miller is Petitioner’s aquatics ecologist. He prepared and submitted scientific and technical data
and information during the NEPA process that was contrary to, and did not provide scientific
support for, the Forest Service’s preferred alternative—the Project to which Petitioner has been
assigned and is challenging in this matter. Petitioner takes issue with the fact that Ms. Sexton’s
task was worded as preparing a rationale to “dismiss” Dr. Miller’s data as opposed to “analyze”
or “fairly consider” Dr. Miller’s data. Accordingly, Petitioner asserts that Ms. Sexton’s
deposition is necessary to determine whether her assignment shows the Forest Service as having
designed to ignore serious criticism of its data during the NEPA process.
I find Petitioner’s argument stretches the text a bit, however, because the task itself is so
vague. It simply says “Rationale for dismissing.” It does not say “find” or “fabricate” a
“rationale for dismissing,” but rather just “Rationale for dismissing.” Whatever rationale she did
prepare as a result of her assignment should speak for itself; the result may be to dismiss the
data, but so long as the rationale is well-reasoned and well-supported, I take no issue. I am more
inclined to view the phrase as simply asking Ms. Sexton to articulate her likely already existing
rationale for dismissing. That is, Dr. Miller’s data may well have first been “analyzed” or “fairly
considered,” and then, as a result of that analysis or fair consideration, deemed to be unavailing
such that its dismissal was legitimate. That is, the decision not to use Dr. Miller’s evidence
either by Ms. Sexton or the Forest Service as a whole may have been made prior to Ms. Sexton’s
being directed to address the rationale in some sort of formal write-up. Again, even if this is a
speculative chronological order, the rationale should stand alone in speaking on the merits of the
data’s dismissal. If Petitioner believes the rationale for the dismissal is hokey, it can argue so
without having deposed its author.
That said, Ms. Sexton’s role as primary contact person for the Forest Service does mean
that she appears to be the agency person most knowledgeable about the Forest Service’s record
keeping for those IDT meetings for which there are no minutes, including those referenced in
Mr. Colby’s cryptic notes. Thus, her deposition is necessary to allow me to ensure the Record is
as complete as it should be (and certainly while Petitioner is deposing Ms. Sexton it can inquire
into the “dismiss” assignment, which may indeed shed light on the matter---the immediately
above paragraph merely means to express my uncertainty that that claim alone, without Ms.
Sexton’s status as point person, is a sufficient basis for ordering discovery).
Wherefore, I GRANT Petitioner’s Order Authorizing Limited Discovery (Doc.38).
Dated: November 15, 2012
BY THE COURT:
s/John L. Kane
Senior U.S. District Judge
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?