London 1 LLC v. United States Department of Interior et al
ORDER denying 30 MOTION to Supplement the Administrative Record. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 12/19/2013.(bshr, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
LONDON 1 LLC, a South Carolina Limited
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE )
INTERIOR, AND CHIEF APPEALS
OFFICER, CULTURAL RESOURCES
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-cv-00228-JFA
On September 27, 2013, Plaintiff moved to supplement the administrative record (ECF
No. 30)—with what amounts to 46 additional pages—in an already voluminous record. Those
46 pages were submitted to the agency, but only after the final agency action. Defendants
opposed the motion.
The court is convinced that Plaintiff’s motion must be denied.1 The court finds that the
September 4, 2012 letter, from the Chief Appeals Officer, stating that “my decision is the final
administrative decision with respect to the February 15, 2012 denial that TPS issued regarding
rehabilitation certification,” is in fact the final agency action. It is a bedrock principle of
administrative law that “a court must only consider the record made before the agency at the time
the agency acted.” Dow AgroSciences LLC v. Nat'l Marine Fisheries Serv., 707 F.3d 462, 467
After reading the initial briefs on the motion, this court held a telephone conference on
November 22, 2013, wherein the parties argued the merits of the motion. That same day, this
court order additional briefing from both parties, related to this court’s authority to remand the
case back to the agency for further proceedings and the court’s authority to supplement the
(4th Cir. 2013). Because those 46 pages were not before the agency at the time of the final
agency action on September 4, 2012, Plaintiff’s motion is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
December 19, 2013
Columbia, South Carolina
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States 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?