Animal Legal Defense Fund v. U.S. Food & Drug Administration
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 16259
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- The Ninth Circuit granted rehearing en banc to reassess the appellate standard of review for district-court FOIA summary-judgment rulings.
- The court agreed with the three-judge panel that the appropriate standard is de novo review and adopted the panel’s reasoning.
- The panel and prior Ninth Circuit practice had used a two-step approach: first determine whether an adequate factual basis exists (de novo), then review district-court factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo.
- The en banc court concluded that other circuits (D.C., 1st, 2d, 6th, 8th, 10th) apply de novo review and that there is no principled basis for a different FOIA standard in the Ninth Circuit.
- The court overruled Church of Scientology and related Ninth Circuit decisions that supported the ‘‘clearly erroneous’’ step in FOIA summary-judgment review.
- The court directed that, when genuine issues of material fact exist in a FOIA case, the district court should hold a bench trial or adversary hearing, make findings of fact and conclusions of law, and that appellate review of those findings remains for clear error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper appellate standard for FOIA summary-judgment orders | De novo review to ensure meaningful judicial oversight of agency withholding | Maintain Ninth Circuit two-step (with clearly erroneous review of factual findings) as appropriate for FOIA | De novo review applies; overruled Church of Scientology and contrary precedent |
| Whether the two-step / "clearly erroneous" approach should persist | That the two-step approach is unnecessary and inconsistent with Federal Rule 56 | That the two-step approach preserves proper deference to district-court factfinding | Rejected; no principled distinction warrants a special FOIA standard |
| How to proceed when genuine factual disputes exist in FOIA cases | Bench trial/hearing with evidence and cross-examination to resolve disputes | Summary judgment framework insufficient; district court factual resolution acceptable under two-step | District courts must hold bench trials or adversary hearings when material facts are disputed; issue findings under Rule 52(a) |
| Whether the en banc court should decide other merits issues | Plaintiff sought resolution on merits | Defendant sought to defend lower-court adjudication | En banc limited to precedent question; remanded to three-judge panel to resolve merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Church of Scientology of California v. U.S. Department of the Army, 611 F.2d 738 (9th Cir.) (origin of Ninth Circuit’s prior two-step FOIA review)
- Petroleum Information Corp. v. U.S. Department of Interior, 976 F.2d 1429 (D.C. Cir.) (D.C. Circuit abandons clearly erroneous standard and applies de novo)
- Halpern v. FBI, 181 F.3d 279 (2d Cir.) (advocates pure de novo review for FOIA summary judgments)
- Yonemoto v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 686 F.3d 681 (9th Cir.) (articulated the Ninth Circuit’s two-step approach)
- Ariz. Dream Act Coal. v. Brewer, 818 F.3d 901 (9th Cir.) (states general rule: summary-judgment rulings reviewed de novo)
- OneBeacon Ins. Co. v. Haas Industries, Inc., 634 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir.) (describes appellate review: findings of fact for clear error; legal conclusions de novo)