2019-04-09_REVISION - M1977306 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Case 1:08-cv-01624-WJM-NRN Document 166 Filed 03/18/19 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 12 FWS to Supplemental BA." (Id. at 3.) The Court adopted the proposed briefing schedule, with the first deadline (i.e., filing of the motion to dissolve) set for 30 days after DOE received a final response from FWS regarding the supplemental BA. (ECF No. 157.) This course of events reveals three things. First, the Court charged DOE with a limited, discrete task—in contrast to a reopening of the entire process that the Court ordered in CEC 1. Second, the Court expressed its expectation of an updated or supplemental ROD,' but the Court said nothing about a new or supplemental administrative record—in contrast to proceedings before the original motion to dissolve (ECF No. 147), where the Court specifically required a new administrative record (see ECF No. 132). Third, the Court asked the parties to describe "what steps remain, if any, before [DOE] may file a motion to dissolve the injunction" (ECF No. 155), and Plaintiffs did not at that time raise the need to produce a new or supplemental administrative record. Accordingly, because the Court did not require a new administrative record, DOE did not err in failing to produce one. Also, the situation is equivalent to "invited error" because Plaintiffs had their opportunity to insist on an administrative record as part of the scheduling order but did not. See, e.g., United States v. Edward J., 224 F.3d 1216, 1222 (10th Cir. 2000). Finally, assembling an administrative record would take more time and likely more briefing. The Court finds that it would not be in the interest of justice to delay ' No party has pointed the Court to an updated or supplemental ROD, unless the supplemental BA (ECF No. 160-1) is deemed to be the same thing. But Plaintiffs do not object on this account, so the Court will not explore the matter further. 9