Pesticide Action Network North America v. Williams
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:24-cv-06324
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 11
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Pesticide Action Network North America v. Williams, Judge Corley denied the plaintiffs’ request to add evidence outside the agency record, with limited remedy-related refiling allowed.
The order affected Pesticide Action Network North America, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Center for Food Safety, Paul Souza, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and intervenor CropLife America by determining which materials could be considered at the merits stage, for standing, or potentially during a later remedy phase.
What happened
Pesticide Action Network North America v. Williams concerns three organizations’ challenge to a 2022 Fish and Wildlife Service opinion about malathion, a pesticide ingredient. While their request for summary judgment was pending, the plaintiffs asked to add documents and declaration materials that were outside the agency’s administrative record.
The court ruled that some exhibits were already part of the record, so the request for those exhibits was denied as moot. It denied the requests for other exhibits because the plaintiffs had not shown that the materials fit the narrow exceptions for adding evidence in an agency case. The court denied some requests without prejudice because the materials might be relevant later when deciding the remedy, and limited other materials to non-merits purposes such as standing.
Judge Corley also denied the federal defendants’ request for a rebuttal declaration. The order did not decide whether the Fish and Wildlife Service’s biological opinion was lawful or whether the plaintiffs would win summary judgment.
The detailed version
- Pesticide Action Network North America v. Williams · No. 3:24-cv-06324
- Jacquelyn Corley
- July 11, 2025
Background
Pesticide Action Network North America, the Center for Biological Diversity, and the Center for Food Safety challenge a 2022 biological opinion issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concerning malathion. The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment, arguing that the biological opinion was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. They also moved to add 19 documents and portions of Brett Hartl’s declaration to the administrative record. The summary-judgment motion was scheduled for argument in January 2026; this order addressed only the request to admit extra-record evidence.
Paul Souza and the Fish and Wildlife Service opposed admission of some materials. CropLife America, which intervened in the case, opposed admission of the same documents opposed by the federal defendants.
Legal standard
In an Administrative Procedure Act case, the court generally reviews the agency’s decision based on the administrative record—the materials before the agency when it acted. The court explained that extra-record evidence may be admitted in narrow circumstances, including when it is necessary to determine whether the agency considered all relevant factors and explained its decision, when the agency relied on documents outside the record, when the evidence is needed to explain technical or complex subjects, or when the plaintiffs show agency bad faith.
The court emphasized that these exceptions are narrowly applied. They do not allow a court to use extra-record evidence simply to question the agency’s scientific analysis or conclusions.
Rulings on the exhibits
- Exhibits 3, 8–14, and 16–19: The court denied the request to admit these 12 exhibits as moot because the parties agreed they were already part of the administrative record. - Exhibit 6: This report and related emails concerned the death of a whooping crane chick and possible organophosphate exposure. The court denied admission because the biological opinion already discussed a confirmed chick and potentially other cases involving acetylcholinesterase inhibition. The plaintiffs’ disagreement with the agency’s conclusions did not satisfy the exception for adding evidence. - Exhibit 2: This 2017 letter from malathion-product registrants concerned the agencies’ work on biological opinions. The court denied admission because the existing record explained the Fish and Wildlife Service’s decision to collect and use pesticide-usage data, and the letter did not address the reliability of that data. - Exhibit 5: The court denied admission because it was issued after the biological opinion and because the plaintiffs did not show that the other agency’s position about usage data fit the relevant-factors exception. - Exhibit 7: These 2024 and 2025 malathion-usage reports postdated the biological opinion. The court denied admission without prejudice for purposes of evaluating the merits, but allowed the plaintiffs to seek admission later if the court reached the remedy phase. The court stated that the plaintiffs had not waived their argument that the reports could be relevant to the remedy. - Exhibit 15: This 2024 five-year species review also postdated the biological opinion. The court denied admission without prejudice and allowed the plaintiffs to seek admission if the case reached the remedy phase. - Exhibits 1 and 4: The court denied admission as extra-record evidence after the plaintiffs agreed that the documents should not be considered on the merits. The court stated that any consideration would be limited to non-merits purposes, such as standing, remedy, or authentication.
Declarations
The court denied the request to admit paragraphs 10–35 and 53–54 of Brett Hartl’s declaration as extra-record evidence. The plaintiffs agreed that paragraphs 10–35 should not be considered on the merits, and acknowledged that paragraphs 53–54 were relevant only to remedy. If the court considered other portions of the Hartl declaration, it would do so only when assessing standing.
The court also limited the declaration of Kara Clauser, a geographic information system specialist at the Center for Biological Diversity, to use as an illustrative exhibit when assessing standing. The court denied the federal defendants’ request to submit a rebuttal declaration because any consideration of the maps would be limited to standing.
Disposition
The court denied the motion to admit extra-record evidence, including denying some requests as moot and denying other requests without prejudice for possible consideration during the remedy phase. This order disposed of Docket No. 59. It did not rule on the pending summary-judgment challenge to the biological opinion.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.