Gearhart v. United States Department of Education

Background

Jeffrey Gearhart brought an action under the Administrative Procedure Act seeking review of final decisions by the United States Department of Education. He alleged that the decisions were arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise unlawful. The opinion describes the dispute as involving challenges to garnishment orders arising from federal student loans Gearhart received in 2003 and 2008.

The Department lodged three administrative records totaling 132 pages. Gearhart moved for permission to conduct limited written and oral discovery and to supplement the administrative record. He sought to add his account of unrecorded oral evidence, third-party correspondence concerning the validity of the student-loan debt, and evidence of statements made during telephone calls with the Department. He also argued generally that the records did not show how the agency reached its decision or whether it considered his hardship.

Legal standard

The court explained that judicial review of agency action generally is limited to the full administrative record before the agency when it made its decision. In the Ninth Circuit, courts may expand the record in four narrowly limited circumstances: when supplementation is necessary to determine whether the agency considered all relevant factors and explained its decision; when the agency relied on documents missing from the record; when supplementation is needed to explain technical terms or complex subjects; or when the plaintiff shows agency bad faith.

The court also noted that extra-record testimony from agency officials may be required only under very limited circumstances, such as a strong showing that the record does not reveal the factors considered or the agency’s interpretation of the evidence, or a showing of bad faith or improper conduct. Evidence that an agency’s stated rationale was pretextual may support extra-record discovery.

Court’s analysis

The court found that Gearhart had not specifically identified documents that should be added to the administrative records. He also had not identified the subjects of the testimony he sought. The court further found that he had not provided a basis for concluding that supplementation or discovery was necessary to explain the decision, justified by pretext, or warranted because of agency bad faith.

The opinion includes a footnote stating that it was unclear whether Gearhart claimed documents he submitted were missing from the record or instead claimed that the documents were present but not considered. The court instructed that, if Gearhart sought to make a more specific showing, he should explain the need for supplementation or discovery in his summary-judgment motion.

Disposition

The court denied Gearhart’s motion for discovery and supplementation of the administrative record without prejudice. The order also modified the existing scheduling order: the Department’s summary-judgment motion was due April 7, 2020; Gearhart’s opposition and cross-motion in a single brief were due April 28, 2020; the Department’s reply and opposition to the cross-motion in a single brief were due May 19, 2020; and Gearhart’s reply was due June 9, 2020. The order terminated Docket No. 46. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers did not decide the merits of Gearhart’s challenge to the Department’s agency decisions in this order.