Cornucopia Institute v. United States Department of Agriculture, Civil Action No. 2016-0215

Background

Cornucopia, a nonprofit investigating organic-certification compliance, filed a FOIA request (2012) seeking records on USDA National Organic Program (NOP) investigations into three companies, including Shamrock Farm Dairies.
AMS initially produced records for two companies (Oskri, JAV) and withheld Shamrock records as an "ongoing investigation;" Cornucopia appealed asserting the Shamrock probe had closed in 2011.
AMS later searched additional systems (hardcopy casefiles, NOP shared drive, complaint database, investigator and director files, email archives) and ultimately produced 2,808 records (2,135 pages released in full; 673 pages partially redacted) between May–Sept 2016, provided with a Vaughn index in October 2016.
Cornucopia sued in February 2016 challenging timeliness, adequacy of search, FOIA exemptions applied, segregability, and sought in camera review of 34 pages; both sides moved for summary judgment.
The court found AMS’s second, detailed declaration and revised Vaughn index sufficient to show a reasonable search, appropriate use of FOIA Exemptions 5, 6, 7(c), 7(d), and 7(e), and adequate segregability review.
The court granted AMS’s summary judgment motion, denied Cornucopia’s motions (summary judgment and in camera review), and concluded AMS need not produce additional material.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adequacy / timeliness of search	Delay and gaps show search unreasonable; some referenced documents missing	AMS conducted reasonable, iterative searches of systems likely to contain responsive records and later produced materials	Search was reasonable; delay not remedied by court but does not invalidate the search
Exemption 5 (deliberative, attorney-client, work-product)	Many redactions not pre-decisional or were shared with third parties so not intra-agency	Redactions reflect pre-decisional deliberations, recommendations, drafts; QAI functions as an agent; communications include OGC legal advice	Exemption 5 and privilege claims sustained as to the described materials
Exemptions 6 / 7(C) & 7(D) (privacy & confidential sources)	Public interest in identifying USDA personnel and mediators outweighs privacy; QAI inspectors' names not confidential	Disclosure would invade private individuals' privacy; identities withheld to protect inspectors; some 7(D) claims but mainly withheld under Exemption 6	Withholdings under Exemptions 6 and 7(C) upheld; 7(D) not sufficiently established but redundant to 6 findings
Exemption 7(E) & segregability	Techniques are routine and not secret; AMS failed to show harm from disclosure; segregability descriptions are conclusory	Disclosure could reveal investigative techniques/database structures and facilitate circumvention; conducted line-by-line segregability review and provided Vaughn index	Exemption 7(E) claim accepted (low showing required); segregability adequately demonstrated

Key Cases Cited

Military Audit Project v. Casey, 656 F.2d 724 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (agency affidavits may support FOIA summary judgment when detailed and uncontradicted)
Oglesby v. Department of the Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (agencies need not search every system but must search those likely to contain responsive records)
SafeCard Services, Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (search need only be reasonably calculated to uncover requested documents)
Department of the Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protective Ass'n, 532 U.S. 1 (2001) (consultants/agents may be considered intra-agency for Exemption 5)
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press v. DOJ, 489 U.S. 749 (1989) (public interest in FOIA balances against privacy interests)
Blackwell v. FBI, 646 F.3d 37 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (agency need only explain logically how disclosure could facilitate circumvention of law under Exemption 7(E))
Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (requirement for an itemized index correlating withheld records with claimed exemptions)