Animal Legal Defense Fund v. United States Food & Drug Administration, 4:12-cv-04376

Background

Plaintiff Animal Legal Defense Fund submitted a FOIA request (Dec. 15, 2011) for FDA Establishment Inspection Reports (EIRs) relating to Texas egg producers; FDA produced EIRs but redacted several categories (including hen house floors, cage rows, cage tiers) under FOIA Exemption 4.
Prior proceedings: Judge Laporte (trial) found the shell-egg market highly competitive, ordered disclosure of number of birds per cage earlier, and ultimately ordered disclosure of number of hen houses and related structural data but withheld total hen population; Ninth Circuit later remanded after the Supreme Court decided Argus Leader.
The Ninth Circuit directed consideration of whether each egg producer ‘‘customarily and actually’’ treated the disputed information as private per Argus Leader v. Argus Leader Media.
On remand, the FDA argued the Hen Housing Information was confidential because producers keep facilities closed and use confidentiality practices; ALDF argued the information was not actually kept private because employees, suppliers, and service personnel could view and freely disseminate it and producers did not require NDAs/noncompetes.
The court found the record insufficient to show that each producer (notably Pilgrim’s Pride and Feather Crest pre-acquisition) took specific steps to keep the Hen Housing Information private; evidence showed suppliers and employees could observe and potentially disclose the information.
Holding: the court denied FDA summary judgment, granted ALDF’s cross-motion, and ordered production of the EIRs without redactions to the Hen Housing Information within 30 days because Exemption 4 was not shown to apply.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hen Housing Information is "confidential" under Exemption 4 post-Argus Leader	Not customarily and actually treated as private; employees/suppliers can view and share it; no NDAs/noncompetes	Treated as proprietary; farms are closed to public and producers take confidentiality measures	Held for Plaintiff: FDA failed to show the information was customarily and actually kept private; Exemption 4 does not apply
Whether successor/acquirer declarations (Cal‑Maine, MPS) can prove confidentiality for predecessors (Pilgrim’s Pride, Feather Crest)	Predecessor practices must be shown; post-acquisition practices insufficient	Post-acquisition attestations reflect confidentiality practices applicable to the records	Held for Plaintiff: post-acquisition declarations are not probative of pre-acquisition confidentiality
Whether biosecurity/site-access restrictions establish confidentiality	Biosecurity does not equal intent to keep production-data secret; record shows restrictions often for disease control	Restricted access demonstrates intent to keep information private	Held for Plaintiff: restriction evidence is equivocal and may reflect biosecurity rather than confidentiality
Whether employees/suppliers being able to observe/disclose defeats confidentiality	Broad dissemination potential (no NDAs for many workers/suppliers) undermines claim of being "customarily and actually" private	Some employees receive confidentiality briefings and some companies use internal confidentiality agreements	Held for Plaintiff: lack of binding NDAs/noncompetes and supplier access means information was not actually kept private

Key Cases Cited

Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, 139 S. Ct. 2356 (2019) (established that Exemption 4 protects information "customarily and actually" treated as private)
Milner v. Department of the Navy, 562 U.S. 562 (2011) (discusses FOIA context and exemptions)
United States Department of Justice v. Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. 136 (1989) (purpose of FOIA and disclosure presumption)
John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp., 493 U.S. 146 (1989) (FOIA’s role in ensuring informed citizenry)
United States Department of State v. Ray, 502 U.S. 164 (1991) (strong presumption in favor of disclosure under FOIA)
Hamdan v. United States Department of Justice, 797 F.3d 759 (9th Cir. 2015) (burden on government to show exemption applies)
Lahr v. National Transportation Safety Board, 569 F.3d 964 (9th Cir. 2009) (summary judgment standards in FOIA cases)
Carlson v. United States Postal Service, 504 F.3d 1123 (9th Cir. 2007) (courts do not defer to agency exemption determinations)