Van Bemmelen v. Commissioner, 155 T.C. 64, 73 (2020) (quoting Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Vilsack, 110 F.Supp.3d 157, 160 (D.D.C. 2015)).
III. Exhibits to Petitioner's V, Inc. Motion and Petitioner's X, Inc. Motion Subsequent to the filing of the parties' Motions in this case, we observed in Van Bemmelen v. Commissioner, 155 T.C. 64 (2020) (Van Bemmelen), that our review is generally confined to the administrative record and explained that a party may supplement the administrative record in one of two ways: "either by (1) including evidence that should have been properly a part of the administrative record but was excluded by the agency"-so-called omitted evidence-"or (2) adding extrajudicial evidence that was not before the agency but the party believes should nonetheless be included in the administrative record." See 155 T.C. 64, 73 (2020) (quoting Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Vilsack, 110 F.Supp.3d 157, 160 (D.D.C. 2015)).
On June 23, 2015, the District Court denied Appellants' motion. ALDF v. Vilsack , 110 F.Supp.3d 157, 161-62 (D.D.C. 2015).On March 24, 2016, the District Court granted USDA's motion to dismiss the complaint.
Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe , 401 U.S. 402, 420, 91 S.Ct. 814, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971), abrogated on other grounds byCalifano v. Sanders , 430 U.S. 99, 97 S.Ct. 980, 51 L.Ed.2d 192 (1977). The full administrative record "include[s] all documents and materials that the agency directly or indirectly considered," Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Vilsack , 110 F.Supp.3d 157, 159 (D.D.C. 2015), and a court "should have before it neither more nor less information than did the agency when it made its decision." Walter O. Boswell Mem'l Hosp. v. Heckler , 749 F.2d 788, 792 (D.C. Cir. 1984).
Parties may seek supplementation (1) to provide "evidence that should have been properly a part of the administrative record but was excluded by the agency;" or (2) to add "extrajudicial evidence that was not initially before the agency but the party believes should nonetheless be included in the administrative record." Van Bemmelen v. Commissioner, 155 T.C. 64, 73 (2020) (quoting Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Vilsack, 110 F.Supp.3d 157, 160 (D.D.C. 2015)). Here, petitioner seeks supplementation of the administrative record with materials from both categories of evidence.
An administrative record may be "supplemented" in one of two ways, "either by (1) including evidence that should have been properly a part of the administrative record but was excluded by the agency, or (2) adding extrajudicial evidence that was not initially before the agency but the party believes should nonetheless be included in the administrative record." Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Vilsack, 110 F. Supp. 3d 157, 160 (D.D.C. 2015) (quoting WildEarth Guardians v. Salazar, 670 F. Supp. 2d 1, 5 n.4 (D.D.C. 2009)). * * * Mr. Neal calls for the first such form of "supplementation", i.e., adding to the record the information that he contends should have been in the record but was excluded by the agency (that is, the information he says he himself gave to Agent Bermudez and his Form 211 that he says must have been given to the agent by the WBO or someone else).
An administrative record may be "supplemented" in one of two ways, "either by (1) including evidence that should have been properly a part of the administrative record but was excluded by the agency, or (2) adding extrajudicial evidence that was not initially before the agency but the party believes should nonetheless be included in the administrative record." Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Vilsack, 110 F. Supp. 3d 157, 160 (D.D.C. 2015) (quoting WildEarth Guardians v. Salazar, 670 F. Supp. 2d 1, 5 n.4 (D.D.C. 2009)). Petitioner's motion conflates these two types of record "supplementation": It requests the Court to include certain omitted evidence in the administrative record as well as to review certain evidence that is outside or in addition to the administrative record.