Save Our Forest Association, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Service
5:24-cv-01336
C.D. Cal.Jan 8, 2026Check TreatmentDocket
Case 5:24-cv-01336-JGB-DTB Document 93 Filed 01/08/26 Page 1 of 4 Page ID
#:2216
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No. EDCV 24-1336 JGB (DTBx) Date January 8, 2026
Title Save Our Forest Association, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Service, et al.
Present: The Honorable JESUS G. BERNAL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
MAYNOR GALVEZ Not Reported
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter
Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s):
None Present None Present
Proceedings: Order (1) GRANTING Plaintiff’s Motion to Complete the Administrative
Record (Dkt. No. 81); and (2) VACATING the January 12, 2026 Hearing
(IN CHAMBERS)
Before the Court is plaintiff Save Our Forest Association, Inc.’s motion to complete the
administrative record. (“Motion,” Dkt. No. 81.) The Court finds this matter appropriate for
resolution without a hearing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15. After considering the papers filed
in support of and in opposition to the Motion, the Court GRANTS the Motion. The Court
VACATES the January 12, 2026 hearing.
I. BACKGROUND
On June 25, 2024, plaintiff Save Our Forest Association, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “SOFA”)
filed a complaint against defendants the U.S. Forest Service (“USFS”) and Michael Nobles
(“Nobles”) (collectively, “Defendants”). (“Complaint,” Dkt. No. 1.) On August 27, 2024,
Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. (“FAC,” Dkt. No. 24.) Plaintiff alleges that USFS
allows BlueTriton Brands, Inc. (“BTB”) to illegally occupy the San Bernardino National Forest
and divert water from Strawberry Creek in violation of the Federal Land Policy Management Act
(“FLPMA”), the National Forest Management Act (“NFMA”), the Administrative Procedure
Act (“APA”), and the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”). (FAC ¶¶ 1-5, 104-118.)
On November 8, 2024, Defendants filed an answer to the FAC. (Dkt. No. 29.) On March 6,
2025, proposed intervenor-defendant Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (“Intervenor”) filed a
motion to intervene. (“Motion to Intervene,” Dkt. No. 38.) On September 11, 2025, this Court
granted the Motion to Intervene. (Dkt. No. 75.) On September 29, 2025, Defendants filed a
notice of lodging of the administrative record. (“SOFA AR,” Dkt. No. 77.) On October 9, 2025,
Page 1 of 4 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk MG
Case 5:24-cv-01336-JGB-DTB Document 93 Filed 01/08/26 Page 2 of 4 Page ID
#:2217
Intervenor filed a motion to dismiss. (Dkt. No. 79.) On October 20, 2025, Plaintiff filed the
Motion. (Motion.) On November 3, 2025, Defendants opposed the Motion. (“Opposition,”
Dkt. No. 84.) On December 7, 2025, Plaintiff filed a reply to the Opposition. (“Reply,” Dkt.
No. 87.)
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Courts must review an agency’s actions under the Administrative Procedure Act based
on the “whole record.” 5 U.S.C. § 706. That includes “all documents and materials directly or
indirectly considered by agency decision-makers and includes evidence contrary to the agency's
position.” Thompson v. U.S. Dep’t of Lab., 885 F.2d 551, 555 (9th Cir. 1989). Otherwise, a
record that is incomplete “must be viewed as a ‘fictional account of the actual decisionmaking
process.’” Portland Audubon Soc. v. Endangered Species Comm., 984 F.2d 1534, 1548 (9th Cir.
1993) (citing Home Box Office, Inc. v. Federal Communications Comm’n, 567 F.2d 9, 54 (D.C.
Cir. 1977)).
The administrative record filed by the government is “subject to a presumption of
regularity.” Goffney v. Becerra, 995 F.3d 737, 748 (9th Cir. 2021). The Ninth Circuit thus
instructs that courts must “presume that an ‘agency properly designated the Administrative
Record absent clear evidence to the contrary.’” Id. (citing Bar MK Ranches v. Yuetter, 994 F.2d
735, 740 (10th Cir. 1993)). Courts may only examine “extra-record evidence” in “limited
circumstances,” such as when an agency “has relied on documents not in the record” or “when
plaintiffs make a showing of agency bad faith.” Id. at 747-78 (citing Lands Council v. Powell, 395
F.3d 1019, 1030 (9th Cir. 2005)). These limited circumstances must be “narrowly construed and
applied.” Id. “To meet the clear evidence standard, a plaintiff must (1) identify reasonable, non-
speculative grounds for the belief that the documents were considered by the agency and not
included in the record, and (2) identify the materials allegedly omitted from the record with
sufficient specificity, as opposed to merely proffering broad categories of documents and data
that are likely to exist as a result of other documents that are included in the administrative
record.” Gill v. Dep’t of Just., No. 14-CV-03120-RS (KAW), 2015 WL 9258075, at *5 (N.D.
Cal. Dec. 18, 2015) (citation modified).
III. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff moves to include in the SOFA AR: (1) the administrative records of a related
hearing before the California State Water Resources Control Board, BlueTriton Brands Inc., v.
California State Water Control Board et al., Case No. 23CECG04292 (“Water Board AR”); (2)
the administrative record for a related case Center for Biological Diversity v. United States
Forest Service, EDCV 16-00175-JGB (“CBD AR”); and (3) attachments to a letter already in the
SOFA AR (“Attachments”). (Mot. at 2.) Defendants agree to add the Attachments to the
SOFA AR. (Opp. at 8, n. 1.) Defendants oppose including the Water Board AR or the CBD AR
to the SOFA AR. The Court takes each proposed addition in turn.
A. Water Board AR
Page 2 of 4 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk MG
Case 5:24-cv-01336-JGB-DTB Document 93 Filed 01/08/26 Page 3 of 4 Page ID
#:2218
Plaintiff argues that the entire Water Board AR should be included because Defendants
“improperly cherry-picked documents” despite the fact that three USFS employees received
service of every single document in the Water Board AR. (Mot. at 6.) Those three employees
were Joshua S. Rider, Staff Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, United States Department
of Agriculture; Joe Rechsteiner, District Ranger-Front Country Ranger District, San Bernardino
National Forest; and Robert Taylor, Forest Hydrologist, San Bernardino National Forest. (Id. at
6-7.) These documents, Plaintiff claims, were “before the USFS on its own request and pertain
to its decisions to issue [special use permits] to divert water from Strawberry Canyon.” (Id.) at
7-8.)
Defendants respond that Plaintiff fails to provide any evidence that those employees
actually received all the documents in the Water Board AR or “incorporated” them in the
decision-making processes at issue in this litigation. (Opp. at 84.) Plaintiff counters that proper
service creates a “rebuttable presumption that the document has been received.” (Reply at 5
(citing Schikore v. BankAmerica Supplemental Ret. Plan, 269 F.3d 956, 961 (9th Cir. 2001)).)
Plaintiff points out that Defendants do not contest that they received the documents. (Id.)
Plaintiff also highlights that the three employees who received the documents were members of
the “actual decision-making team” for the 2023 special use permit (“SUP”) granted to
BlueTriton Brands, which is at issue in this case. (Reply at 5.) Plaintiff concludes that this is
sufficient to demonstrate that these documents were “indirectly considered” by Defendants and
should be included in the SOFA AR. (Id. at 6.)
The Court agrees that delivery of these documents to members of the decision-making
team is sufficient to demonstrate that the documents were indirectly considered by Defendants.
Plaintiff thereby overcomes the presumption of regularity because Plaintiff has identified
“reasonable, non-speculative grounds for the belief that the documents were considered by the
agency.” See Ctr. for Food Safety v. Env’t Prot. Agency, No. 23-CV-02714-SI, 2023 WL
8813528, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2023).
B. CBD AR
Next, Plaintiff argues that all the records in the CBD AR should be included in the SOFA
AR because the “Decision Notice, environmental analysis, and SUPs” depended on the 2018
settlement in the underlying case. (Mot. at 8.) The materials in the CBD AR provide a historical
record of when water was first diverted by Blue Triton Brands and were before Defendants and
pertain to their decision to issue SUPs to divert water. (Id.) Defendants attack Plaintiff’s
argument on similar grounds that Plaintiff fails to establish that Defendants considered these
documents in the decision-making processes at issue in this litigation. (Opp. at 7-8.) Defendants
additionally cite to two cases, including a Ninth Circuit case, in support of their argument. (Id. at
8-9.) Plaintiff reiterates that issues in this case resulted from the settlement in the earlier case
from which the CBD AR stems and that this constitutes “reasonable grounds” to include the
CBD AR. (Reply at 6-8.) Plaintiff also distinguishes the two cases cited by Defendants. (Id. at
8.)
Page 3 of 4 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk MG
Case 5:24-cv-01336-JGB-DTB Document 93 Filed 01/08/26 Page 4 of 4 Page ID
#:2219
The Court finds that Plaintiff has identified “reasonable, non-speculative grounds for the
belief that the documents were considered by the agency.” See Ctr. for Food, 2023 WL 8813528,
at *3. Defendants do not contest that the ‘Decision Notice, environmental analysis, and SUPs
issued since 2018 . . . all flow from the settlement of this earlier case.” (Mot. at 8.)
Furthermore, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that the two cases cited by Defendants are
distinguishable. First, Defendants cite to Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Jeffries, 99
F.4th 438, 446 (9th Cir. 2024) for the proposition that documents from a prior agency action
need not be included in the administrative record for a more recent agency action that is
challenged. (Opp. at 9-10.) The Ninth Circuit primarily denied supplementing the
administrative record with the administrative record of a previous agency action because the
challenged agency action was not a continuation of the previous agency action that had been
withdrawn, but instead a “new” agency action. Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project, 99 F.4th at
446. Next, Defendants also cite to City of Dania Beach v. F.A.A., 628 F.3d 581, 590 (D.C. Cir.
2010) for the same proposition. As with Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project, the D.C. Circuit
declined to supplement the administrative record with previous records related to a possible
expansion of the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport because in 2005 the Federal
Aviation Administration “began the process anew.” City of Dania Beach v. F.A.A., 628 F.3d
581, 590 (D.C. Cir. 2010). The Court also took issue with the plaintiffs’ failure to “identify[]
particular documents” with which to supplement the record. Id. Here, however, Plaintiff argues
that the CBD AR contains the historical record of the action that Plaintiff seeks to enjoin.
Therefore, the CBD AR directly involves documents related to issues to be decided in this
litigation and do not pertain to a separate and distinct agency action. Thus, the Court finds these
cases distinguishable.
In conclusion, the Court holds that Plaintiff has met their burden to supplement the
record with the CBD AR.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the Court GRANTS the Motion and ORDERS Defendants to
include the Water Board AR, the CBD AR, and the Attachments in the administrative record in
this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Page 4 of 4 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk MG