1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 PIT RIVER TRIBE; NATIVE No. 2:19-cv-02483-JAM-AC

COALITION FOR MEDICINE LAKE

14 HIGHLANDS DEFENSE; MOUNT

SHASTA BIOREGIONAL ECOLOGY

15 CENTER; and MEDICINE LAKE ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT

CITIZENS FOR QUALITY CALPINE’S MOTION FOR

16 ENVIRONMENT, RECONSIDERATION 17 Plaintiffs, 18 v. 19 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT;

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

20 THE INTERIOR; CALPINE CORPORATION; and CPN 21 TELEPHONE FLAT, INC., 22 Defendants. 23 24 Before this Court is Defendant Calpine’s request for 25 reconsideration (“Mot.”), ECF No. 96, of the Magistrate Judge’s 26 ruling denying Calpine’s motion for protective order (“Order”), 27 ECF No. 95. Calpine requests the Court overrule that portion of 28 the Magistrate Judges ruling and grant the motion for protective 1 order. For the reasons stated below the Court GRANTS Calpine’s 2 request.1 3 4 I. OPINION 5 A. Legal Standard 6 When reviewing a party’s objection to a non-dispositive 7 pretrial ruling by a magistrate judge, the district court must 8 “modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly 9 erroneous or contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The 10 district court reviews the magistrate’s factual determinations 11 and discretionary decisions under the “clearly erroneous” 12 standard, while the “contrary to law” standard “allows 13 independent plenary review of purely legal determinations by the 14 magistrate judge.” Sung Gon Kang v. Bureau Connection, Inc., 15 18-cv-01359-AWI-SKO, 2020 WL 2539292 at *5 (May 19, 2020). 16 B. Analysis 17 The statutory language of § 706(1) states that “the court 18 shall review the whole record or those parts of it cited by a 19 party [. . .]” when reviewing cases under that section. 20 5 U.S.C. § 706(1). The “whole record” language references the 21 administrative record. See Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 22 470 U.S. 729, 743-44 (1985). 23 Review of the Government’s actions, or inaction, is limited 24 to the administrative record compiled by the agency, subject to 25 some exceptions. See Seattle Aubudon Society v. Norton, No. 26

27 1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was scheduled 28 for August 24, 2021. eee EIEIO IE RO IIE OS NEE III OE EE

1 | CO5-1835L, 2006 WL 1518895 at *3 (W.D. Wash. May 25, 2006) 2 (noting the administrative record is a presumptive limitation of 3 scope for discovery in a 706(1) action). Plaintiffs have failed 4 to convince this Court that any exceptions should be applied 5 here. Thus, any discovery from Calpine is unwarranted and 6 unnecessary. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Calpine’s request 7 for a protective order and reverses the Magistrate Judge’s 8 ruling on the issue. 9 10 Il. ORDER 11 For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Calpine’s 12 | Motion for Reconsideration. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: October 7, 2021 15 kA 16 teiren staves odermacr 7008 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28