Opinion
No. 07-73C.
February 14, 2007
ORDER
On February 9, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion to supplement the administrative record. On February 13, 2007, defendant and defendant-intervenor filed oppositions to plaintiff's motion. That same day, defendant filed an addendum to the administrative record containing documents that were considered by the agency in making the decision in question, but that were not included in the administrative record as originally filed.
The court has reviewed these various filings and concludes that plaintiff's motion is moot to the extent defendant has now added various documents to the administrative record and is not well-taken in its other respects. In particular, the court rejects the notions that any factual materials "relevant" to the decision rendered below must be included in the administrative record, even if not considered by the agency. Were the court to agree to that proposition, it would essentially convert this action into a de novo proceeding, making a correct application of the arbitrary and capricious standard virtually impossible. That this court will not do. See Murakami v. United States, 46 Fed. Cl. 731, 735 (2000). The court also believes that plaintiff has not made an adequate case in support of the depositions it seeks. Based upon the affidavits supplied by defendant, the other documents that plaintiff requests appear simply not to exist.
Accordingly, plaintiff's motion is deemed MOOT to the extent that defendant has added documents to the administrative record and is otherwise DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.