Safari Club International v. Jewell
111 F. Supp. 3d 1
D.D.C.2015Background
- Plaintiffs (Safari Club International et al.) challenge FWS’s 2014 preliminary and final determinations suspending imports of sport‑hunted African elephant trophies from Zimbabwe, asserting APA and ESA violations.
- Plaintiffs moved to supplement the administrative record (or admit extra‑record evidence) with two 2002 internal FWS emails: (1) a June 7, 2002 email from Timothy Van Norman about leopard import permits (Van Norman Email); and (2) a June 14, 2002 email from Karl Stromayer reporting Zimbabwe elephant survey and carrying‑capacity estimates (Stromayer Email).
- Defendants produced a certified administrative record for the 2014 determinations and submitted a declaration from Van Norman stating the Van Norman Email was not considered in the 2014 decisionmaking.
- Plaintiffs contend the emails show the agency’s understanding of required procedures and/or that FWS failed to consider relevant factors (e.g., carrying capacity), supporting procedural claims (failure to provide notice and comment; decision based on lack of information).
- The court denied the motion to supplement or admit the emails as extra‑record evidence, finding plaintiffs did not meet the heavy burden to show the documents were considered by agency decisionmakers or that extra‑record evidence was necessary for effective review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Van Norman Email must be added to the administrative record | Email was authored by a key decisionmaker and formed part of his knowledge base relevant to 2014 decisions | Van Norman declares the email was not considered; production via FOIA does not mean it influenced the 2014 decisions | Denied — plaintiffs failed to show reasonable, non‑speculative grounds that agency considered the email |
| Whether the Van Norman Email should be admitted as extra‑record evidence | Email shows agency knew the correct notice/comment process and thus bears on whether FWS followed required procedures | No allegation of bad faith or improper behavior; the email is dated and not necessary for judicial resolution of legal questions about notice/comment | Denied — extra‑record admission not warranted; legal questions are for the court and the email does not make review ineffective |
| Whether the Stromayer Email should be admitted as extra‑record evidence | Email supplies first‑hand data on Zimbabwe carrying capacity, a relevant factor FWS allegedly failed to consider | Carrying capacity not directly dispositive; more recent population data exist in the record; no bad faith alleged | Denied — not necessary for effective review; historic email would at most require remand, not substitution of court judgment |
| Whether plaintiffs met the standard to supplement the administrative record generally | Plaintiffs claim certain FOIA‑produced documents were part of the decisionmakers’ consideration and thus belong in the record | Agency presumption of correct record compilation; plaintiffs must identify non‑speculative evidence that documents were considered | Denied — plaintiffs failed the heavy burden to overcome the presumption that the administrative record is complete |
Key Cases Cited
- James Madison Ltd. ex rel. Hecht v. Ludwig, 82 F.3d 1085 (D.C. Cir.) (judicial review of agency action is based on administrative record)
- Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138 (U.S. 1973) (focus of review is administrative record existing at time of agency decision)
- Esch v. Yeutter, 876 F.2d 976 (D.C. Cir.) (circumstances when courts may consider extra‑record evidence)
- IMS, P.C. v. Alvarez, 129 F.3d 618 (D.C. Cir.) (extra‑record evidence allowed when agency failed to examine relevant factors or explain decision, or acted in bad faith)
- Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership v. Salazar, 616 F.3d 497 (D.C. Cir.) (limits on admitting extra‑record evidence; bad faith or bare record standards)
- Maritel, Inc. v. Collins, 422 F. Supp. 2d 188 (D.D.C.) (administrative record must include all materials the agency directly or indirectly considered)
- Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Ass'n v. EPA, 627 F.2d 1095 (D.C. Cir.) (supplementation of record is the exception, not the rule)
- Commercial Drapery Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 133 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir.) (discussion of limits on extra‑record evidence)