Filed: Mar. 02, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. , District Judge . Through this action, Plaintiffs assert four claims for relief against Federal Defendants for violations of the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq., and the Mandamus and Venue Act ("MVA"), 28 U.S.C. 1361. 1 First Amended Complaint, ECF No. 84. On October 9, 2019, this Court issued a Supplemental Pretrial Scheduling Order, which requires that non-expert discovery be completed within one year of the order, and that
Summary: ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. , District Judge . Through this action, Plaintiffs assert four claims for relief against Federal Defendants for violations of the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq., and the Mandamus and Venue Act ("MVA"), 28 U.S.C. 1361. 1 First Amended Complaint, ECF No. 84. On October 9, 2019, this Court issued a Supplemental Pretrial Scheduling Order, which requires that non-expert discovery be completed within one year of the order, and that ..
More
ORDER
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR., District Judge.
Through this action, Plaintiffs assert four claims for relief against Federal Defendants for violations of the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., and the Mandamus and Venue Act ("MVA"), 28 U.S.C. § 1361.1 First Amended Complaint, ECF No. 84. On October 9, 2019, this Court issued a Supplemental Pretrial Scheduling Order, which requires that non-expert discovery be completed within one year of the order, and that dispositive motions be filed within 180 days after the close of discovery. ECF No. 83. Presently before the Court is Federal Defendants' Motion to Modify the Court's Scheduling Order, which Plaintiffs oppose.2 ECF Nos. 88, 92. For the reasons set forth below, Federal Defendants' Motion is GRANTED.3
Judicial review of agency decisions is governed by the APA, which limits the scope of the Court's review to the administrative record available to the agency at the time of the challenged decision, unless certain exceptions apply. See Animal Def. Council v. Hodel, 840 F.2d 1432, 1436 (9th Cir. 1988) (permitting discovery beyond the administrative record only when certain exceptions apply); Lands Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d 1019, 1030 (9th Cir. 2005) ("These limited exceptions operate to identify and plug holes in the administrative record."). Here, the modified schedule proposed by Federal Defendants follows the standard procedure in APA cases and Plaintiffs have not presented any arguments persuading the Court to deviate from this procedure. Therefore, Federal Defendants' Motion is GRANTED, and the Court adopts the following modified schedule:
1. Federal Defendants lodge supplemental administrative record — 90 days
2. Plaintiffs file motion to supplement or complete record (if any) — 30 days
3. If not, Plaintiffs file opening motion for summary judgment — 30 days
4. Federal Defendants file combined cross-motion and response brief — 30 days
5. Defendant-Intervenors file combined cross-motion and response brief — 7 days
6. Plaintiffs file combined response and reply brief — 15 days
7. Federal Defendants file reply brief — 15 days
8. Defendant-Intervenors file reply brief — 7 days
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. "[T]he Supreme Court has construed a claim seeking mandamus under the MVA, `in essence,' as one for relief under § 706 of the APA." Indep. Min. Co. v. Babbitt, 105 F.3d 502, 507 (9th Cir. 1997).
2. Defendant-Intervenors filed a Response in Support of Federal Defendants' Motion and request that they submit their briefs one week after Federal Defendants pursuant to previously agreed upon schedules. ECF No. 89.
3. Because oral argument would not be of material assistance, the Court ordered this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Local Rule 230(g).
