United States District Court, D. Alaska
ORDER RE MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT
L. GLEASON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is the State of Alaska's Motion to Supplement
Administrative Record, the Federal Defendants'
Opposition, Alaska Wildlife Alliance, et al.'s Joinder to
the Federal Defendants' Opposition and the
Reply. The State seeks to supplement the
administrative records of the National Park Service and the
Fish and Wildlife Service by adding transcripts of Alaska
Board of Game hearings and other documents from the Alaska
Board of Game that relate to the taking of predators. The
State describes the other documents as “including
proposals, reports, and written public
comments.” The State maintains such supplementation
is warranted because the federal agencies have asserted that
their regulations “were prompted by actions taken by
the Alaska Board of Game.” Thus, the State maintains
that the Board of Game's records were indirectly
considered by the federal agencies and “are necessary
to properly review whether the NPS and FWS acted
of an agency record is permitted “(1) if necessary to
determine whether the agency has considered all relevant
factors and has explained its decision, (2) when the agency
has relied on documents not in the record, or (3) when
supplementing the record is necessary to explain technical
terms or complex subject matter.” Here, the State
maintains that the proposed supplementation is needed
“to explain the agency's action” and because
“it appears that the agency has relied on documents or
materials not included in the administrative
following reasons, the motion to supplement will be denied. A
motion to supplement the administrative record with certain
items must be “supported by concrete evidence that
these items were directly or indirectly considered by the
agency.” The State has not offered such evidence
here. Rather, it asserts that the supplementation is
warranted as it will better explain the reason for the
State agency's determination. But the reasons
why the Board of Game took the actions it took is not before
this Court on review. Rather, this Court is only reviewing
the federal agencies' actions based on the federal
administrative records that each agency had.
the State had the opportunity to provide these materials to
Federal Defendants during the comment periods for the
challenged rules, and did not do so. It cannot seek to add
these materials now.
these reasons, the State's Motion to Supplement
Administrative Records, at Docket 110, is
DENIED. Pursuant to this Court's order at
Docket 127, the parties shall file a proposed schedule or
schedules for summary judgment briefing within 14 days of the
date of this order.
 Docket 110 (Mot. to Suppl.); Docket
113 (Opp.); Docket 117 (Opp.); Docket 119 (Reply).
 Docket 111 (Memo. in Supp. Mot. to
Suppl.) at 5.
 Docket 111 at 3, 3 n.2 (quoting
 Docket 119 at 3.
 Midwater Trawlers Coop. v.
Dep't of Commerce, 393 F.3d 994, 1007 (9th Cir.
2004) (citation omitted).
 Docket 119 at 4, 5. The State relied
on the Ninth Circuit's decision in In re United
States, 875 F.3d 1200 (9th Cir. 2017), which had held
that documents considered by subordinates within an agency
should be included in an administrative record. The
Circuit's decision was vacated and remanded by ...