929 F.3d 1079
9th Cir.2019Background
- In 2014 Civil Beat requested under FOIA two CDC records arising from a May 2014 CDC inspection of the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa (UH) biolab: the inspection report and a "show-cause" letter regarding possible suspension/revocation of UH's select-agent registration.
- CDC initially withheld information under BPRA (42 U.S.C. § 262a(h)(1)(C) and (E)) and FOIA Exemption 6, later producing redacted versions that (1) omitted site-specific regulatory violations, (2) omitted identity/location of the registered entity and related references, and (3) omitted names/contacts of CDC inspectors.
- Civil Beat sued under FOIA; the district court upheld the CDC’s redactions under BPRA and Exemption 6 and granted summary judgment to the CDC. Civil Beat appealed.
- While the appeal was pending the CDC disclosed the previously-redacted regulatory-violation material in response to a separate FOIA request, prompting the court to treat that portion as moot.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed withholding of the inspectors’ names/contacts under FOIA Exemption 6, but reversed the district court regarding the BPRA public-endangerment exemption for identity/location and remanded for further case-specific justification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BPRA Exemption §262a(h)(1)(C) (site-specific safeguards) justified redaction of the specific regulatory violations | Civil Beat contended the violations should be disclosed; much of the violations were already public | CDC relied on BPRA to withhold site-specific safeguard details to prevent aiding unauthorized access | Moot — CDC later produced the violations; Ninth Circuit dismissed this claim as moot and vacated related district-court rulings |
| Whether BPRA §262a(h)(1)(E) (inspection reports identifying registered persons) allows withholding identity/location when those facts are publicly known | Civil Beat argued public knowledge defeats withholding; agency must justify harm | CDC argued identity/location may always be withheld to protect public health and safety | Reversed and remanded — categorical withholding rejected; CDC must make case-by-case, tailored showings that disclosure "would endanger public health or safety" |
| Whether the official-acknowledgment doctrine required disclosure because identity/location were publicly known | Civil Beat invoked official-acknowledgment to overcome exemption | CDC argued the doctrine applies only as waiver to an otherwise valid exemption and is inapplicable if exemption is invalid | Court held the doctrine did not apply because plaintiff challenged the statutory exemption’s availability; agency still must justify non-disclosure on the merits |
| Whether FOIA Exemption 6 permits withholding CDC inspectors’ names and contact info | Civil Beat argued names/contacts are public in agency directory and disclosure serves FOIA's accountability purpose | CDC argued disclosure would risk harassment or targeting of inspectors possessing sensitive knowledge | Affirmed — Ninth Circuit balanced privacy vs FOIA purpose, found a nontrivial privacy interest and no public-interest showing that disclosure would significantly inform public about government operations; Exemption 6 withholding upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- U.S. Dep’t of State v. Ray, 502 U.S. 164 (discusses FOIA’s presumption in favor of disclosure)
- Milner v. Dep’t of Navy, 562 U.S. 562 (FOIA exemptions are exclusive and narrowly construed)
- Carlson v. U.S. Postal Serv., 504 F.3d 1123 (two-step Exemption 3 analysis)
- Shannahan v. IRS, 672 F.3d 1142 (agency declarations accorded substantial weight but not blanket deference)
- Hajro v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 811 F.3d 1086 (mootness when agency cures FOIA injury; pattern-or-practice exception)
- U.S. Bancorp Mortg. Co. v. Bonner Mall P’ship, 513 U.S. 18 (vacatur when prevailing party moots an appeal by unilateral action)
- All. for the Wild Rockies v. U.S. Forest Serv., 907 F.3d 1105 (discusses vacatur/remand principles)
- ACLU v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., 628 F.3d 612 (official-acknowledgment doctrine framework)
- Fed. Labor Relations Auth. v. U.S. Dep’t of Defense, 510 U.S. 487 (FOIA Exemption 6 balancing test and FOIA’s core public-interest standard)
- U.S. Dep’t of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (FOIA’s core purpose: inform public about government operations)