WildEarth Guardians v. Jewell et al

Filing 115

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 103 Motion to Amend/Correct/Reconsider 97 Memorandum Decision and Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to Expand Record and Conduct Limited Discovery. Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 12/21/20 (alt)

Case 2:16-cv-00168-DN Document 115 Filed 12/21/20 PageID.3035 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
WILDEARTH GUARDIANS, and
GRAND CANYON TRUST,
Plaintiffs,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD RULING

v.
DAVID L. BERNHARDT, in his official
capacity as Secretary of the Interior, ET AL.,
Defendant.

Case No. 2:16-cv-00168-DN
District Judge David Nuffer

and
STATE OF UTAH, and
CANYON FUEL COMPANY, LLC,
Defendant-Intervenors.
This case involves challenges to Defendants’ approval and issuance of a coal lease on
public lands that are part of the Manti-La Sal National Forest (“Flat Canyon Lease”). 1
Defendants compiled an administrative record (“AR”), which Plaintiffs sought to have
supplemented (“Motion to Supplement”). 2 The Motion to Supplement was granted in part and
denied in part (“Supplementation Order”). 3 Among other things, the Supplementation Order
required the AR to be supplemented with the Bureau of Land Management’s (“BLM”) fair

1

Second Amended Complaint ¶¶ 2-3 at 2, docket no. 83, filed Feb. 24, 2017.

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Add Documents to the Administrative Record and Authorize Limited Discovery (“Motion to
Supplement”), docket no. 70, filed Sept. 29, 2016.

2

Memorandum Decision and Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to Expand Record and Conduct
Limited Discovery (“Supplementation Order”), docket no. 97, filed July 8, 2019.

3

Case 2:16-cv-00168-DN Document 115 Filed 12/21/20 PageID.3036 Page 2 of 5

market value (“FMV”) analysis for the Flat Canyon Lease. 4 Defendants now seek
reconsideration of the Supplementation Order regarding the BLM’s FMV analysis (“Motion for
Reconsideration”). 5 Because Defendants fail to demonstrate that reconsideration of the
Supplementation Order is appropriate, Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration 6 is DENIED.
DISCUSSION
“Grounds warranting a motion to reconsider include (1) an intervening change in the
controlling law, (2) new evidence previously unavailable, and (3) the need to correct clear error
or prevent manifest injustice.” 7 “Thus, a motion for reconsideration is appropriate where the
court has misapprehended the facts, a party’s position, or the controlling law.” 8 However,
motions for reconsideration are “inappropriate vehicles to reargue an issue previously addressed
by the court when the motion merely advances new arguments, or supporting facts which were
available at the time of the original motion.” 9 A motion for reconsideration may not be used “to
revisit issues already addressed or advance arguments that could have been raised in prior
briefing.” 10
Defendants argue that reconsideration of the Supplementation Order is necessary under
only the third ground: the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. 11 However,
Defendants fail to demonstrate that reconsideration of the Supplementation Order is appropriate.

4

Id. at 5-6.

Federal Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration of Administrative Record Ruling (“Motion for Reconsideration”),
docket no. 103, filed Aug. 19, 2019.

5

6

Id.

7

Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000).

8

Id.

9

Id.

10

Id.

11

Motion for Reconsideration at 2, 7-9.

2

Case 2:16-cv-00168-DN Document 115 Filed 12/21/20 PageID.3037 Page 3 of 5

Defendants first argue that supplementation of the AR with the BLM’s FMV analysis is
improper because the FMV analysis is not relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims this case. 12 But an
administrative record is not limited to those documents that are relevant to a plaintiff’s claims.
Rather, “[t]he complete administrative record consists of all documents and materials directly or
indirectly considered by the agency” in making the challenged decision. 13 Therefore,
Defendants’ first argument lacks merit.
Defendants’ next argue that supplementation of the AR with the BLM’s FMV analysis is
improper because the FMV analysis post-dates the challenged agency decision and was not
considered in making the decision. 14 This argument is a repackaging of Defendants’ prior
argument in response to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Supplement. 15 Therefore, the argument is
improperly raised in a motion for reconsideration. 16 Regardless, the Supplementation Order
adequately addressed and rejected the argument. 17
Defendants’ third argument is that supplementation of the AR with the BLM’s FMV
analysis is improper because the FMV analysis is highly confidential and its disclosure could
impair the government’s ability to protect the public interest in the lease sale process. 18
Defendants’ concern regarding the FMV analysis’s confidentiality was addressed in the
Supplementation Order. 19 The Supplementation Order provided that Defendants “may cause [the
Motion for Reconsideration at 8; Federal Defendants’ Reply Brief in Support of Their Corrected Motion for
Reconsideration of Administrative Record Ruling (“Reply”) at 2-4, docket no. 109, filed Sept. 25, 2019.
12

13

Bar MK Ranches v. Yuetter, 994 F.2d 735, 739-740 (10th Cir. 1993).

14

Motion for Reconsideration at 8-9; Reply at 2, 4-7.

Federal Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Add Documents to the Administrative Record and to
Authorize Limited Discovery at 9-10, docket no. 77, filed Nov. 8, 2016.
15

16

Servants of Paraclete, 204 F.3d at 1012.

17

Supplementation Order at 5-6.

18

Motion for Reconsideration at 6; Reply at 3, 7.

19

Supplementation Order at 6 n.34.

3

Case 2:16-cv-00168-DN Document 115 Filed 12/21/20 PageID.3038 Page 4 of 5

FMV analysis] to be disclosed subject to the Standard Protective Order set forth in DUCivR
26-2(a).” 20 Defendants fail to demonstrate that the Standard Protective Order would not
sufficiently protect the FMV analysis. Therefore, Defendants’ argument regarding the FMV
analysis’s confidentiality lacks merit.
Defendants final argument is that because Plaintiffs’ fourth cause of action fails to state a
claim, Plaintiffs have no basis to seek supplementation of the AR with the BLM’s FMV
analysis. 21 Defendants argue that before supplementing the AR with the FMV analysis,
Defendants should be permitted to file a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings regarding
Plaintiffs’ fourth cause of action. 22 This argument fails for two separate reasons.
First, the AR is not limited to those documents that are relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims.
“The complete administrative record consists of all documents and materials directly or
indirectly considered by the agency” in making the challenged decision. 23 The Supplementation
Order determined that “the evidence is clear that the BLM did consider [the FMV] analysis,
directly or indirectly, in making its decision to lease the Flat Canyon [Lease].” 24 Reconsideration
of this determination is not warranted.
And second, the local rules prohibit motions for judgment on the pleadings in this case. 25
The local rules do permit motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim. 26 But the time to file

20

Id.

21

Motion for Reconsideration at 4 n.1; Reply at 8.

22

Reply at 8.

23

Bar MK Ranches, 994 F.2d at 739-740.

24

Supplementation Order at 6.

25

DUCivR 7-4(a)(1)(B).

26

Id. at 7-4(a)(2)(A).

4

Case 2:16-cv-00168-DN Document 115 Filed 12/21/20 PageID.3039 Page 5 of 5

such a motion was when Defendants responded to Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint. 27
Defendants did not seek dismissal of Plaintiffs’ fourth cause of action at that time, 28 nor have
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss in the over three and a half years since responding to the
second amended complaint. Delaying completion of the AR and this litigation further to permit
Defendants to now file a motion to dismiss is not warranted.
Therefore, because Defendants fail to demonstrate that reconsideration of the
Supplementation Order is appropriate, Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration 29 is DENIED. 30
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration 31 is
DENIED.
Signed December 21, 2020.
BY THE COURT
________________________________________
David Nuffer
United States District Judge

27

Id.

28

Federal Defendants’ Response to Second Amended Complaint, docket no. 84, filed Mar. 9, 2017.

29

Docket no. 103, filed Aug. 19, 2019.

Defendants should more carefully review their position before filing a motion with so little merit. The court is
ready to reconsider when warranted and appreciates the chance to correct error, but repetition of positions is
wasteful for the parties and the court.
30

31

Docket no. 103, filed Aug. 19, 2019.

5