Glenwood Springs Citizens' Alliance v. United States Department of Interior et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 20-cv-00658-CMA
GLENWOOD SPRINGS CITIZENS’ ALLIANCE,
Plaintiff, and
GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,
Plaintiff-Intervenor,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
DAVID BERNHARDT, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Interior,
UNITED STATES BUREAU OF LAND MANGEMENT,
WILLIAM PENDLEY, in his official capacity as Acting Director of the BLM,
JAMIE CONNELL, in her official capacity as Colorado BLM State Director, and
LARRY SANDOVAL, JR., in his official capacity as Field Manager of the BLM’s
Colorado River Valley Field Office,
Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO CONDUCT LIMITED DISCOVERY
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Conduct Limited
Discovery (Doc. # 14). The Motion is granted in part and denied in part.
I. 	BACKGROUND
This is an action for judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706. Plaintiff, a Glenwood Springs citizen group, contends that
Defendants, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Department of the
Case No. 1:20-cv-00658-CNS Document 25 filed 03/10/21 USDC Colorado pg 1
of 5

2
Interior (DOI), violated federal mining law by allowing a company to mine a local quarry
without proper approval. (Doc. # 1). Plaintiff now challenges Defendants’ decision to
allow mining at the quarry. (Doc. # 1, pp. 41-42).
Defendants moved to dismiss the case “for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
and/or failure to state a claim.” (Doc. # 10). To bring an action for judicial review under
the APA, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant took “final agency action for which
there is no other adequate remedy in court.” 5 U.S.C. § 704. Defendants argue that the
Complaint fails to allege “final agency action” because it “does not identify what
[agency] actions and decisions it is challenging.” (Doc. # 10, p. 3 (internal quotations
omitted)).
Rather than filing a response, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Conduct Limited
Discovery. (Doc. # 14). Plaintiff argues that it should be allowed to conduct jurisdictional
discovery before responding to the Motion to Dismiss.
II. 	ANALYSIS
Discovery is generally not allowed in APA cases because the court’s review of
agency action is limited to the administrative record. Olenhouse v. Commodity Credit
Corp., 42 F.3d 1560, 1579-80 (10th Cir. 1994). There is, however, a narrow exception to
the no-discovery rule: courts may allow limited discovery a party challenges the court’s
jurisdiction to hear the case. See Dennis Garbert & Assocs., Inc. v. Pack-Tech Intern.
Corp., 115 F.3d 767, 774 n.4 (10th Cir. 1997). “When a defendant moves to dismiss for
lack of jurisdiction, either party should be allowed discovery on the factual issues raised
Case No. 1:20-cv-00658-CNS Document 25 filed 03/10/21 USDC Colorado pg 2
of 5

3
by that motion.” Sizova v. Nat. Institute of Standards & Technology, 282 F.3d 1320,
1326 (10th Cir.2002) (internal quotation omitted).
Plaintiff argues that it is entitled to discovery because Defendants have
challenged this Court’s jurisdiction. (Doc. # 14). Defendant counters that its Motion did
not raise any factual issues, and that discovery is therefore unnecessary. (Doc. # 15, p.
3). The Court agrees with Plaintiff.
To establish jurisdiction to pursue an APA claim, the plaintiff must show that the
defendant took a “final agency action” that is subject to review in federal court. Pennaco
Energy, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Interior, 377 F.3d 1147, 1155 (10th Cir.2004). Plaintiff’s
Complaint alleges that Defendants took a final, reviewable action (Doc. # 1, pp. 41-42),
but Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss argues that “there has not yet been any [agency]
action” that would be subject to review. (Doc. # 10). Thus, Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss raises a factual question as to whether Defendants engaged in any action that
would be subject to review under the APA. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to conduct
limited discovery to determine whether Defendant engaged in such action. Sizova, 282
F.3d at 1326.
Plaintiff requests up to ten interrogatories, up to ten requests for admission, and
up to ten requests for production. Plaintiff has failed to justify such expansive discovery.
The factual question raised by Defendants’ motion is very narrow: was there a final
agency action as defined by the APA, or wasn’t there? Plaintiff has not provided any
acceptable reason why it would need up to thirty separate discovery requests to answer
such a straightforward question. Therefore, the Court will allow Plaintiff half of the
Case No. 1:20-cv-00658-CNS Document 25 filed 03/10/21 USDC Colorado pg 3
of 5

4
discovery it seeks: up to five interrogatories, up to five requests for admission, and up to
five requests for production. These discovery requests should be narrowly tailored to
address the factual issues raised by Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
Plaintiff shall have fourteen days from the date of this order within which to send
its discovery requests to Defendants. Defendants shall then respond in the time
provided by the applicable discovery rules.
Pursuant to the parties’ Joint Case Management Plan (Doc. # 9), Plaintiff shall
file its response to the Motion to Dismiss within thirty days after receiving Defendants’
discovery responses. Defendants shall file their reply within 21 days after the response
is filed.
III. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Conduct Limited
Discovery (Doc. # 14) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court
ORDERS that Plaintiff may send up to 5 interrogatories, up to 5 requests for admission,
and up to five requests for production to Defendants. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have 14 days from the date of this order
to send its discovery requests to Defendants. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall respond to Plaintiff’s discovery
requests within the time provided by the discovery rules. It is
Case No. 1:20-cv-00658-CNS Document 25 filed 03/10/21 USDC Colorado pg 4
of 5

5
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file its response to the Motion to
Dismiss (Doc. # 10) within 30 days of receiving Defendants’ discovery responses.
Defendants shall file their reply within 21 days thereafter.
DATED: March 10, 2021
BY THE COURT:
_____________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge
Case No. 1:20-cv-00658-CNS Document 25 filed 03/10/21 USDC Colorado pg 5
of 5