Litigation Procedure Supplementing the Administrative Record. The plaintiff sought to supplement the administrative record compiled by FHWA with five categories of additional documents, most of which involved written communications between the CSX and DDOT. The court rejected this request for two main reasons. First, the plaintiff did not identify “specific, known additional documents” but instead merely identified broad categories of documents that it believed might exist and could possibly support its claim. Second, the plaintiff did not provide any evidence that these additional documents were actually considered by FHWA during the NEPA process. The court held that “Because the Committee can provide no more than speculation that certain classes of unknown documents were considered by the actual FHWA decision-makers, it has not overcome the strong presumption that the agency properly designated the administrative record.” Discovery . The plaintiff also asked the court for permission to take discovery, which would involve document production requests and sworn witness interviews (depositions). The court noted that, in an administrative record case, discovery is not allowed unless the plaintiff makes a “strong showing” that the agency acted in bad faith in its decision-making process. Here, the plaintiffs sought to show bad faith by presenting emails and other documents indicating that certain District of Columbia officials had committed to approve the project before the NEPA process was complete, and that some officials at FHWA and DDOT had expressed misgivings about the effect of those actions on the NEPA process. The court considered those documents, but concluded that they did demonstrate bad faith, so the request for discovery was denied.