Ramirez Medina v. Asher
Filing
136
ORDER granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's 134 Motion to Complete the Administrative Record; granting in part and denying in part Defendants' 134 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (PM)
Case 2:17-cv-00218-RSM Document 136 Filed 09/04/18 Page 1 of 3
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
5
6
7
DANIEL RAMIREZ MEDINA,
8
9
Petitioner,
v.
10
11
U.S. DEPARTMENT OD HOMELAND
SECURITY, et al.,
Case No. C17-0218RSM
ORDER DENYING IN PART
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPLETE
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD AND
GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
12
Respondents.
13
14
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Complete the
15
Administrative Record and Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order. Dkt. #134. Plaintiff seeks
16
to supplement the existing administrative record with additional evidence that he believes will
17
“contextualize the government’s behavior toward Mr. Ramirez and confirm just how baseless
18
19
and malicious that behavior has been.” Dkt. #134 at 4. Defendants oppose the motion and seek
20
a protective order, arguing that this is a straightforward APA case and Plaintiff is not entitled to
21
discovery. Dkt. #134 at 15. For the reasons discussed herein, the Court agrees in part with
22
Defendant and DENIES IN PART the motion to complete the administrative record and
23
GRANTS IN PART the motion for protective order.
24
25
Plaintiff acknowledges that “nothing further is needed for Plaintiff to prevail on his APA
26
claims,” but asserts that extra-record evidence is warranted in this matter. Dkt. #134. The
27
Supreme Court has expressed a general rule that courts reviewing an agency decision are limited
28
to the administrative record. Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729, 743-44, 84 L. Ed.
ORDER
PAGE - 1
Case 2:17-cv-00218-RSM Document 136 Filed 09/04/18 Page 2 of 3
1
2d 643, 105 S. Ct. 1598 (1985). Likewise, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has long held that
2
“judicial review of an agency decision typically focuses on the administrative record in existence
3
at the time of the decision and does not encompass any part of the record that is made initially in
4
the reviewing court.” Southwest Ctr. For Biological Diversity v. United States Forest Serv., 100
5
F.3d 1443, 1450 (9th Cir. 1996). However, the Ninth Circuit has also crafted narrow exceptions
6
7
to the general rule:
In limited circumstances, district courts are permitted to admit extra-record
evidence: (1) if admission is necessary to determine “whether the agency has
considered all relevant factors and has explained its decision,” (2) if “the
agency has relied on documents not in the record,” (3) “when supplementing
the record is necessary to explain technical terms or complex subject matter,”
or (4) “when plaintiffs make a showing of agency bad faith.”
...
8
9
10
11
12
Though widely accepted, these exceptions are narrowly construed and
applied.
13
14
Lands Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d 1019, 1028-1030 (9th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). Plaintiff
15
16
asserts that he is entitled to discovery under the first, second and fourth exceptions. Dkt. #134 at
17
4-6.
18
19
As an initial matter, Defendants acknowledge that the Notice of Intent to Terminate
(“NOIT”) references DHS email records that summarize Plaintiff’s merits hearing in immigration
20
21
court, and that they will supplement the administrative record with non-privileged documents.
22
Dkt. #134 at 9. Thus, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion to supplement to the extent it seeks
23
those records, and deny Defendants’ motion for protective order to the extent it would apply to
24
those records. Further, for the reasons set forth by Plaintiff, the Court finds it appropriate to
25
supplement the record with all referenced and cited documents in the NOIT, including any
26
27
documents that show consultations with ICE regarding the decision to cancel Plaintiff’s DACA
28
status and/or any decision to pursue Plaintiff’s removal, and DHS records from the January 17,
ORDER
PAGE - 2
Case 2:17-cv-00218-RSM Document 136 Filed 09/04/18 Page 3 of 3
1
2018, immigration hearing/decision. See Dkt. #134 at 11-12. Accordingly, the Court will also
2
grant Plaintiff’s motion to supplement to the extent it seeks those records, and deny Defendants’
3
motion for protective order to the extent it would apply to those records.
4
However, having reviewed the arguments set forth by both parties in the instant motions,
5
the Court agrees with Defendants, for the reasons set forth in their briefing, that no other extra6
7
8
9
10
record discovery is appropriate at this time. See Dkt. #134. Accordingly, except for those
documents specified above, Defendants’ motion for protective order will be granted.
Therefore, having reviewed the parties’ motions, the oppositions thereto and replies in
support thereof, along with the remainder of the record, the Court hereby ORDERS that:
11
1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Complete the Administrative Record (Dkt. #134 at 1-14) is
12
13
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. No later than fourteen (14) days
14
from the date of this Order Defendants shall supplement the Administrative Record
15
with the documents referenced in the NOIT, including email records that summarize
16
Plaintiff’s merits hearing in immigration court, any documents that show
17
consultations with ICE regarding the decision to cancel Plaintiff’s DACA status
18
19
and/or any decision to pursue Plaintiff’s removal, and DHS records from the January
20
17, 2018, immigration hearing/decision.
21
2. Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. #134 at 15-24) is GRANTED IN
22
PART AND DENIED IN PART as discussed above.
23
24
DATED this 4 day of September, 2018.
25
A
26
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
27
28
ORDER
PAGE - 3
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?