evidence that the BLM’s Washington, D.C. office played any substantial or personal involvement in the decision to create the RMPs at issue. Thus, the court concludes that the acts taken by officials in the BLM’s Washington, D.C. office do not create a factual nexus between this controversy and the District of Columbia. In the alternative, the plaintiffs argue that this controversy implicates “nationally important” questions of environmental law, thus concluding that this suit deserves to be heard in the nation’s capital. Pis.’ Opp’n at 14-15. Certain cases may touch upon matters of national importance that are somehow extrinsic to the environmental quality of the land or property at issue. E.g., Otay Mesa Property L.P. v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 584 F.Supp.2d 122, 126-27 (D.D.C.2008) (<HOLDING>); Wilderness Soc’y v. Babbitt, 104 F.Supp.2d
recognizing records material to selfdefense claim outweigh victims interest in confidentiality holding that the governments interest in the welfare of children embraces not only protecting children from physical abuse but also protecting childrens interest in the privacy and dignity of their homes and in the lawfully exercised authority of their parents recognizing minnesotas interest in protecting the interests of the child holding that the national interest in protecting endangered species may outweigh the negligible effect the issue would have on local residents recognizing that a state has a legitimate interest in all insurance policies protecting its residents against risks an interest which the state can protect even though the state action may have repercussions beyond state lines