After en banc court overrules idiosyncratic FOIA summary judgment review standard, case remanded for determination of disputed material fact.
Cite as
2016 DJDAR 9943Published
Oct. 2, 2016Filing Date
Sep. 29, 2016Summary
The Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) seeking information on egg-production farms in Texas. The FDA released documents but redacted data regarding total hen population and number of hen houses, among other information, citing FOIA Exemption 4. ALDF filed the instant FOIA action but met summary judgment. Though, in that summary judgment ruling the trial court conducted some factfinding as to whether, as pertinent to Exemption 4, the redacted information would have unduly harmed the FDA's ability to compete in that market. On its first review of the matter, this panel affirmed but noted in a concurrence that the circuit's standard of review in FOIA matters was inappropriate. An en banc court overruled precedent supporting that standard and remanded to this panel.
Reversed and remanded. As noted in the previous panel opinion on the matter, ALDF and FDA submitted competing declarations concerning the competitive harm that would befall the FDA were the redacted information released. Per ordinary summary judgment standards, which now prevail in the FOIA context in this circuit after the en banc ruling in this matter, this case must be remanded for a determination of this genuine issue of material fact, regarding the competitive harm.
Per Curiam opinion.
— Brian Cardile
ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
U.S. FOOD & DRUG
ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 13-17131
D.C. No. 3:12-cv-04376-EDL
On Remand from the En Banc Court
Filed September 30, 2016
Before: Susan P. Graber, Kim McLane Wardlaw, and Mary H. Murguia, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam Opinion
COUNSEL
Monte M.F. Cooper, Derek F. Knerr, and Scott Lindlaw, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Menlo Park, California, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Lindsey Powell and Michael S. Raab, Attorneys, Appellate Staff, Civil Division, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for Defendant-Appellee.
Caitlin Zittkowski and Cristina R. Stella, San Francisco, California, as and for Amicus Curiae Center for Food Safety.
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
In Animal Legal Defense Fund v. FDA, No. 13-17131, 2016 WL 4578362 (9th Cir. Sept. 2, 2016) (en banc) (per curiam), the en banc court overruled our earlier precedents on the applicable standard of review in Freedom of Information Act (?FOIA?), 5 U.S.C. § 552, cases decided on summary judgment. The court held that the usual summary judgment standard applies, so we must review the district court?s decision de novo. Accordingly, on summary judgment, ?if there are genuine issues of material fact in a FOIA case, the district court should proceed to a bench trial or adversary hearing.? Animal Legal Def. Fund, 2016 WL 4578362, at *2.
As we noted in our earlier opinion, Animal Legal Defense Fund v. FDA, 819 F.3d 1102, 1108?09 (9th Cir. 2016), the parties submitted competing declarations concerning the potential competitive effect of releasing egg-production information. In a per curiam concurrence, we also observed that, ?if ordinary principles applied, summary judgment would not be appropriate because the record contains a disputed issue of material fact.? Id. at 1112. Following the en banc court?s decision, those ordinary principles now control this case. Applying the usual summary judgment standard, we conclude that there is a genuine issue of material fact in this case and, therefore, we must reverse and remand to the district court for further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424