American Chemistry Council, Inc. v. United States Department of Health and Human Services
922 F. Supp. 2d 56
D.D.C.2013Background
- ACC submitted FOIA request to HHS seeking records about the Zhang Study and related funding; request included data, methodologies, records, and analyses; HHS refused to forward item 2f data to grantees under Circular A-110; ACC sued under FOIA, APA, and sought mandamus; court held item 2f data was already publicly available and not required to be re-requested; court found potential inadequacy in search of agency records and limited relief to FOIA; court dismisses APA and mandamus claims as duplicative or premature; court allows part of FOIA claim to proceed concerning the agency’s search for broader DOE records; overall disposition: partial grant and partial denial of motion to dismiss.
- The Zhang Study data relevant to 2f were incorporated in the Zhang Study and publicly accessible on NIH/NCI websites.
- FOIA processing follows Circular A-110, Shelby Amendment, and agency practice: data requests linked to agency action with force of law trigger data-sharing obligations; but here, data already public nullifies necessity to re-request.
- The Court noted Plaintiff forfeited arguments about interpretation of the catchall for data in item 2, due to lack of administrative exhaustion on that point.
- FOIA provides an adequate remedy; the court did not need to address whether the RoC or EPA regulations have legal effect.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Circular A-110 require requesting data from grantees? | ACC contends data must be obtained from grantees under Circular A‑110. | HHS argued only item 2f falls under A‑110; catchall not clearly signals data beyond 2f. | Partially resolved: item 2f data not required because data already public; however, issue shaped by catchall ambiguity. |
| Was HHS's search of its own records adequate? | ACC alleges the search omitted relevant records. | Agency may rely on affidavits; search adequate under standards. | FOIA claim regarding search may proceed; need supporting affidavits; not dismissed. |
| Should APA and mandamus claims survive given FOIA remedy? | APA and mandamus provide alternatives if FOIA fails. | FOIA provides adequate remedy; duplicative claims should be dismissed. | Count II and Count III dismissed; FOIA governs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sparrow v. United Air Lines, Inc., 216 F.3d 1111 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (evaluate pleadings with inferences while not accepting legal conclusions)
- LaCedra v. Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, 317 F.3d 345 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (catchall FOIA requests may be liberally construed)
- Landmark Legal Found. v. EPA, 272 F. Supp. 2d 59 (D.D.C. 2003) (liberal construction of FOIA requests; search obligations)
- Occidental Petroleum Corp. v. SEC, 662 F. Supp. 496 (D.D.C. 1987) (staffing/denial duties; explain reasons for denial)
- Valencia-Lucena v. Coast Guard, 180 F.3d 321 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (reasonableness standard for agency search under FOIA)
- Perry v. Block, 684 F.2d 121 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (methodology for evaluating FOIA search sufficiency)
- Jerome Stevens Pharms., Inc. v. FDA, 402 F.3d 1249 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (standard for agency action and review under FOIA)