Pit River Tribe v. Bureau of Land Management

Opinion

PIT RIVER TRIBE; NATIVE No. 2:19-cv-02483-JAM-AC COALITION FOR MEDICINE LAKE HIGHLANDS DEFENSE; MOUNT SHASTA BIOREGIONAL ECOLOGY CENTER; and MEDICINE LAKE ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT CITIZENS FOR QUALITY CALPINE’S MOTION FOR Plaintiffs, v. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; CALPINE CORPORATION; and CPN Defendants. Before this Court is Defendant Calpine’s request for reconsideration (“Mot.”), ECF No. 96, of the Magistrate Judge’s ruling denying Calpine’s motion for protective order (“Order”), ECF No. 95. Calpine requests the Court overrule that portion of the Magistrate Judges ruling and grant the motion for protective order. For the reasons stated below the Court GRANTS Calpine’s request.1 A. Legal Standard When reviewing a party’s objection to a non-dispositive pretrial ruling by a magistrate judge, the district court must “modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The district court reviews the magistrate’s factual determinations and discretionary decisions under the “clearly erroneous” standard, while the “contrary to law” standard “allows independent plenary review of purely legal determinations by the magistrate judge.” Sung Gon Kang v. Bureau Connection, Inc., 18-cv-01359-AWI-SKO, 2020 WL 2539292 at *5 (May 19, 2020). B. Analysis The statutory language of § 706(1) states that “the court shall review the whole record or those parts of it cited by a party [. . .]” when reviewing cases under that section. 5 U.S.C. § 706(1). The “whole record” language references the administrative record. See Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729, 743-44 (1985). Review of the Government’s actions, or inaction, is limited to the administrative record compiled by the agency, subject to some exceptions. See Seattle Aubudon Society v. Norton, No.

1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was scheduled for August 24, 2021. eee EIEIO IE RO IIE OS NEE III OE EE

CO5-1835L, 2006 WL 1518895 at *3 (W.D. Wash. May 25, 2006) (noting the administrative record is a presumptive limitation of scope for discovery in a 706(1) action). Plaintiffs have failed to convince this Court that any exceptions should be applied here. Thus, any discovery from Calpine is unwarranted and unnecessary. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Calpine’s request for a protective order and reverses the Magistrate Judge’s ruling on the issue. Il. ORDER For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Calpine’s Motion for Reconsideration. Dated: October 7, 2021 kA teiren staves odermacr 7008