279 F.R.D. 180
D.D.C.2012Background
- This case concerns Earthworks et al. v. U.S. Department of the Interior, with Northwest Mining Association and Alaska Miners Association moving to supplement the administrative record and plaintiffs seeking production of documents withheld from the record.
- The dispute centers on whether the Department of Interior’s 2003 millsite regulations and the 2008 remand response (Mining Claim Rule) were arbitrary or capricious and whether the administrative record is complete.
- Judge Kennedy’s remand directed BLM to address fair market value for certain uses and to review millsite and mining-claim policy context.
- Plaintiffs seek to supplement the record with documents ( Exhibits 1–3) and other materials (Exhibits D–I) alleged to be informative about the policy shift, while defendants argue the record is complete.
- Intervenors seek to add materials suggesting Forest Service independent authority and related interpretations, but the court limits consideration to the disputed regulations and related remand issues.
- The court governs supplementation under APA § 706, emphasizing a strong presumption of regularity regarding the administrative record and narrowly defining when extra-record evidence may be admitted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should supplement the administrative record. | Plaintiffs contend the record is incomplete and needs specific extra documents. | Defendants argue there are no grounds to supplement; the record already reflects the agency’s reasoning. | Denied; no clear evidence that documents were before decision-makers or that gaps exist. |
| Whether the court may consider extra-record evidence. | Plaintiffs argue for broader review beyond the administrative record. | Defendants urge strict adherence to the record absent strong showing of bad faith or necessity. | Limited; exceptions to extra-record review are narrow and do not apply here. |
| Whether the privileged documents were properly withheld and how to handle privilege logs. | Plaintiffs challenge privilege log adequacy and withholding as improper. | Defendants assert privilege applies and records are protected. | Privilege issues require cure and in-camera review; logs must be corrected. |
| Whether intervenors may introduce non-disputed Forest Service materials. | Intervenors argue broader record context should be considered. | Documents unrelated to the challenged rules do not belong in the record. | Exhibits pertaining to non-disputed issues excluded; intervention limited to disputed regulations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (U.S. 1971) (defining the scope of review as the full administrative record)
- Pacific Shores Subdivision California Water Dist. v. United States Army Corps of Eng’rs, 448 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2006) (interpreting the “whole record” and administrative record limits)
- IMS, P.C. v. Alvarez, 129 F.3d 618 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (four instances permitting extra-record evidence (revised view on Esch exceptions))
- Cape Hatteras Access Preservation Alliance v. United States Department of Interior, 667 F. Supp. 2d 111 (D.D.C. 2009) (restricts Esch exceptions; favors limited extra-record review)
- Franks v. Salazar, 751 F. Supp. 2d 62 (D.D.C. 2010) (APA review limits to record unless strong showing of bad faith or record is bare)