CF Industries, Inc. v. Department of Justice Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, & Explosives
692 F. App'x 177
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- April 17, 2013: massive fire/explosion at West Fertilizer in West, Texas; 15 dead, 160+ injured. ATF conducted a large criminal-origin investigation.
- State-court plaintiffs sued CF Industries (CFI), alleging defective ammonium nitrate caused the explosion; CFI asserted alternative causation (a criminal actor) and sought ATF evidence to defend.
- CFI served Touhy requests on DOJ/ATF for investigative materials; ATF initially denied (investigation ongoing, law‑enforcement concerns) but later produced substantial materials and a partially redacted final report.
- ATF provided numerous items (crater measurements, photos, lab analyses, witness summaries, videos, LIDAR, portions of final investigative report) but withheld some materials asserting law‑enforcement privilege and burdens.
- CFI sued in federal court seeking a declaration compelling disclosure; district court granted summary judgment to ATF. The Fifth Circuit affirmed under APA review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper standard of review for ATF’s Touhy denial | CFI: apply judicial balancing of law‑enforcement privilege; agency must meet privilege burden and courts balance need | ATF: agency action reviewed under APA; agency discretion to apply Touhy regs | APA review applies; court reviews for arbitrary, capricious, abuse of discretion |
| Whether ATF’s nondisclosure was arbitrary or capricious | CFI: withholding impairs defense; ATF must justify specific withholdings under privilege balancing | ATF: disclosed much material; withheld items based on law enforcement harms, burden, and investigation integrity | ATF’s decision to withhold certain evidence was not arbitrary or capricious; summary judgment affirmed |
| Applicability of law‑enforcement privilege framework used in ordinary discovery | CFI: courts should apply multi‑factor balancing (privilege burden on gov’t, litigant’s need) | ATF: those discovery frameworks aren’t controlling in APA review of agency Touhy decisions | Court declined to apply discovery balancing framework; treated decision as agency action under APA |
| Adequacy of ATF’s disclosures to CFI | CFI: needs original evidence to test causation and defend state claims | ATF: provided substantial materials (partially redacted report, lab results, photos, videos, witness summaries) while protecting sensitive items | Court found ATF had produced significant information and appropriately limited further disclosure |
Key Cases Cited
- Touhy v. Ragen, 340 U.S. 462 (federal agencies may prescribe regulations controlling disclosure to third parties)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (administrative action review: agency must articulate rational connection between facts and decision)
- Hasie v. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 633 F.3d 361 (APA governs review of agency decisions refusing disclosure)
- In re U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 459 F.3d 565 (law‑enforcement privilege protects investigative files in ongoing criminal investigations)
- COMSAT Corp. v. Nat’l Sci. Found., 190 F.3d 269 (agency response to third‑party subpoena reviewed under the APA)