How have courts dealt with the issue of improper inclusion of documents in the administrative record?

We find no abuse of discretion in the court's ruling on this issue. Selma was claiming that some, but not all, of the documents included in the administrative record were improper. Yet, it did not inform the court how many pages of the record it was contending were improperly included. Even if the trial court had agreed those documents were wrongly included, it could not easily determine how much to tax costs. "It is not the lower court's duty to search through voluminous material to find support for [a party's] request, just as it is not an appellate court's duty to search through a record to find support for allegations in an appellate brief." (Seaman v. Superior Court (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 1279, 1290.) Since Selma did not adequately object to Kingsburg's claimed costs, the burden did not shift to Kingsburg to justify the inclusion of the documents.