Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Vilsack, 110 F. Supp. 3d 157

Background

Plaintiffs seek to compel the complete administrative record for the USDA's license renewal of Cricket Hollow Zoo.
The court previously held that the administrative record must be complete and may be supplemented only under narrow circumstances.
Plaintiffs request inclusion of documents they contend were before the agency but not in the record, arguing they could have influenced the decision.
The court must determine which agency decision(s) form the basis for the administrative record in this case, focusing on the 2014 licensing decision.
Defendants contend they considered only the application materials and ministerial requirements, not other documents Plaintiffs wish to include.
The court denies the motion to compel supplementation, finding the challenged documents were not before the decisionmakers or sufficiently related to the decision.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
May the record be supplemented with documents not considered by the agency?	Documents were before the agency and should be included.	Supplementation is inappropriate; documents were not considered by decisionmakers.	Supplementation denied; no proper basis shown.
Which agency decision forms the basis for the administrative record?	Pattern-and-practice and multiple decisions may be part of the record.	Only the 2014 licensing decision is properly before the court.	Court treats the 2014 licensing decision as the relevant basis.
Did plaintiffs show the documents were directly or indirectly considered by the agency?	Documents were possessed by the agency and could influence the decision.	The agency did not consider these documents for the renewal determination.	Plaintiffs failed to show the agency considered the documents.
Is supplementation allowed as an extraordinary exception in this case?	Exemption under a narrow set of exceptions may apply.	No exceptional basis demonstrated; standard rule applies.	No extraordinary exception found; record supplementation denied.
What is the Court's disposition on Plaintiffs’ motion to compel the complete administrative record?	Motion should be granted to include additional materials.	Motion should be denied; materials were not part of the record.	Motion denied.

Key Cases Cited

Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971) (full record review required for agency decisions)
Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99 (1977) (abrogates some aspects of prior ‘whole record’ approach)
Pac. Shores Subdivision, Cal. Water Dist. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 448 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2006) (administrative record includes all materials the agency considered)
Amfac Resorts, L.L.C. v. Dep’t of Interior, 143 F. Supp. 2d 7 (D.D.C. 2001) (presumption of regularity in record designation)
Banner Health v. Sebelius, 945 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2012) (need for clear, non-speculative grounds for inclusion of materials)
Nat’l Mining Ass’n v. Jackson, 856 F. Supp. 2d 150 (D.D.C. 2012) (supplementation requires showing materials were part of the record)
WildEarth Guardians v. Salazar, 670 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2009) (two types of supplementation: missing record materials or extrajudicial evidence)
Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc. v. United States, 706 F. Supp. 2d 116 (D.D.C. 2010) (pattern of delay not justiciable; relevance to record scope)
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation P’ship v. Salazar, 616 F.3d 497 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (limitations on accepting supplemental information)
Hill Dermaceuticals, Inc. v. Food & Drug Admin., 709 F.3d 44 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (narrow exceptions to record completeness)
Esch v. Yeutter, 876 F.2d 976 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (procedural deficiencies and review limits)
San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 751 F.2d 1287 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (limits on supplementing record under agency's final decision)