Oceana, Inc. v. Coggins

OCEANA, INC., Plaintiff, v. WYNN COGGINS, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 19-CV-03809-LHK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

May 5, 2021

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL

Re: Dkt. No. 88

Plaintiff Oceana, Inc. ("Plaintiff") brings this action against Defendant Wynn Coggins, in her official capacity; Defendant National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ("NOAA"); and Defendant National Marine Fisheries Service ("NMFS") (collectively, "Government Defendants"). On September 2, 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part the parties' motions for summary judgment ("the September 2, 2020 Order"). Oceana v. Ross, 483 F. Supp. 3d 764 (N.D. Cal. 2020). Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to compel compliance with the September 2, 2020 Order. Having considered the parties' submissions, the relevant law, and the record in this case, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to compel.

I. BACKGROUND

Below, the Court summarizes the most relevant parts of the instant case. The September 2, 2020 Order provides a more fulsome description of the background of the instant case. See Oceana, 483 F. Supp. 3d at 767-774.

In response to overfishing concerns, Congress enacted the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 ("Magnuson-Stevens Act"). The Magnuson-Stevens Act created eight Regional Fishery Management Councils and requires the Councils to create fishery management plans ("FMPs") aimed at preventing overfishing. 16 U.S.C. §§ 1852(h)(1), 1801(b)(4), 1854(a)(3). The Magnuson-Stevens Act sets ten "national standards for fishery conservation and management," the first two of which are relevant to the instant case. 16 U.S.C. § 1851(a). National Standard One requires that "[c]onservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery for the United States fishing industry." 16 U.S.C. § 1851(a)(1). National Standard Two requires that "[c]onservation and management measures shall be based upon the best scientific information available." 16 U.S.C. § 1851(a)(2).

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006 requires that each FMP "establish a mechanism for specifying annual catch limits ["ACLs"] in the plan . . . at a level such that overfishing does not occur in the fishery." 16 U.S.C. § 1853(a)(15). ACLs are set with reference to the overfishing limit ("OFL") and the acceptable biological catch ("ABC"). The OFL is a quantifiable factor that is "used to determine if overfishing has occurred, or if the stock or stock complex [of a fishery] is overfished." 50 C.F.R. § 600.310(e)(2)(i)(A). The ABC is "a level of a stock or stock complex's annual catch that accounts for the scientific uncertainty in the estimate of OFL and any other scientific uncertainty." Id. § 600.310(f)(2)(ii).

On April 8, 2019, the NMFS published a proposed rule in the Federal Register to set an ACL for the central population of the anchovy. AR 292:17233-17236. The NMFS proposed an OFL of 94,290 metric tons ("mt"), an ABC of 23,573 mt and an ACL of 23,573 mt. Id. at 17233-17234.

On May 31, 2019, the NMFS published a final rule in the Federal Register ("the 2019 Catch Rule"). AR 264:16386-16392. The 2019 Catch Rule averaged anchovy abundance estimates from the three preceding years (2016-2018) and arrived at an average biomass of 394,519 mt. Id. at 16387-16388. The 2019 Catch Rule calculated the OFL by multiplying the average biomass from 2016-2018 by an estimate of the rate of fishing mortality for anchovy at MSY (0.239). Id. at 16387. This yielded an MSY and OFL of 94,290 mt. Id. at 16387-16388. The NMFS then calculated an acceptable biological catch ("ABC") of 23,573 by reducing the OFL by 75% pursuant to Amendment 13. Id. The NMFS then set the annual catch limit ("ACL") to equal the ABC at 23,573 mt. Id.

On June 28, 2019, Plaintiff filed a complaint that challenged the OFL, ABC, and ACL set in the 2019 Catch Rule as well as Amendments 8 and 13 to the Pacific Council's Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan ("CPS FMP"). ECF No. 1. On August 23, 2019, the Court granted California Wetfish Producers Association and Monterey Fish Company Inc.'s ("Intervenor-Defendants") unopposed motion to intervene. ECF No. 27.

On March 17, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 59. On April 20, 2020, Intervenor-Defendants and Government Defendants filed their cross-motions for summary judgment. ECF Nos. 63, 64.

On September 2, 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and Government Defendants' and Intervenor Defendants' cross-motions for summary judgment. Oceana, 483 F. Supp. 3d at 764. As to Plaintiff's challenge to Amendments 8 and 13 to the CPS FMP, the Court granted Government Defendants' and Intervenor Defendants' cross-motions for summary judgment. Id. at 778-79. As to Plaintiff's challenge to the OFL, ABC, and ACL set in the 2019 Catch Rule, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. Id. at 779-88.

Specifically, the Court concluded that the OFL, ABC, and ACL set in the 2019 Catch Rule were arbitrary and capricious for two reasons. First, the OFL, ABC, and ACL set in the 2019 Catch Rule were not based on the best scientific information available because the NMFS dismissed two studies, MacCall (2016) and Thayer et al. (2017). Id. at 780-83. Because the 2019 Catch Rule was not based on the best information available, the Court concluded that the NMFS "offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to evidence before the agency" and failed to "articulate a rational connection between the facts found and the conclusions reached." Id. at 783 (quotation omitted).

Second, the OFL, ABC, and ACL set in the 2019 Catch Rule did not prevent overfishing because they set static OFL, ABC, and ACL values for an indefinite period of time, and the evidence did not demonstrate that those limits would prevent overfishing. Id. at 783-88. Accordingly, the NMFS "offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to evidence before the agency." Id. at 788 (quotation omitted).

Because the Court concluded that the 2019 Catch Rule was arbitrary and capricious, the Court vacated the 2019 Catch Rule and remanded the 2019 Catch Rule "for further action consistent with this order." Id. at The Court "decline[d] Plaintiff's invitation to 'require' the NMFS 'to issue a new catch rule [that] ensure[s] . . . annual limits are adjusted annually.'" Id. The Court declined to "dictate the substance of any new catch rule on remand." Id. The Court ordered Defendants to "promulgate a new rule in compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the APA within 120 days." Id.

After entering the September 2, 2020 Order, the Court entered judgment in the instant case. ECF No. 78. On October 30, 2020, Defendants appealed the September 2, 2020 Order to the Ninth Circuit. ECF No. 81. The Ninth Circuit has not yet issued a decision.

On November 18, 2020, the NMFS published a proposed rule in the Federal Register to set an ACL for the central population of the anchovy. 85 Fed. Reg. 73446. The NMFS proposed an OFL of 119,153 mt, an ABC of 29,788 mt, and an ACL of 25,000 mt. 85 Fed. Reg. at 73446.

On December 31, 2020, the NMFS published a final rule in the Federal Register ("the 2020 Catch Rule"). 85 Fed. Reg. 86855. The 2020 Catch Rule set an OFL of 119,153 mt, an ABC of 29,788 mt, and an ACL of 25,000 mt. 85 Fed. Reg. at 86861.

On January 29, 2021, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel compliance with the September 2, 2020 Order. ECF No. 88 ("Mot."). On February 3, 2021, Defendants filed an opposition. ECF No. 91 ("Opp'n"). On February 19, 2021, Plaintiff filed a reply. ECF No. 93 ("Reply").

On January 29, 2021, the same day that Plaintiff filed the instant motion, Plaintiff also filed a new lawsuit challenging the 2020 Catch Rule. Case No. 21-CV-00736-LHK, ECF No. 1. On April 1, 2021, the Court concluded that the instant case was related to Plaintiff's new lawsuit. ECF No. 96. On April 6, 2021, Government Defendants filed an answer and a notice stating that the administrative record had been filed. Case No. 21-CV-00736, ECF Nos. 23, 24.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal courts have "inherent power to enforce compliance with their lawful orders." Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 370 (1966). This power extends "to the specific context of a mandate issued to a federal agency." California v. United States Dep't of Labor, 155 F. Supp. 3d 1089, 1095-96 (E.D. Cal. 2016) (citing Flaherty v. Pritzker, 17 F. Supp. 3d 52, 55 (D.D.C. 2014). "Should an agency neglect the orders of a federal court, an order enforcing the original mandate is . . . 'particularly appropriate.'" Id. (quoting Int'l Ladies' Garment Workers' Union v. Donovan, 733 F.2d 920, 922 (D.C. Cir. 1984)).

A court should grant a motion to enforce a final judgment "when a prevailing plaintiff demonstrates that a defendant has not complied with a judgment entered against it, even if the noncompliance was due to misinterpretation of the judgment." Heartland Hosp. v. Thompson, 328 F. Supp. 2d 8, 11 (D.C. Cir. 2004). "Success on a motion to enforce a judgment gets a plaintiff only 'the relief to which [the plaintiff] is entitled under [its] original action and the judgment entered therein.'" Heartland Reg'l Med. Ctr. v. Leavitt, 415 F.3d 24, 29 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (quoting Watkins v. Washington, 511 F.2d 404, 406 (D.C. Cir. 1975)). However, if "the plaintiff has received all relief required by that prior judgment, the motion to enforce is denied." Id.

III. DISCUSSION

In the instant motion, Plaintiff moves to compel compliance with the September 2, 2020 Order because the OFL, ABC, and ACL set in the 2020 Catch Rule violates the September 2, 2020 Order. Mot. at 8-16. Plaintiff requests that the Court find NMFS in contempt of the September 2, 2020 Order; require NMFS to issue a new...