Granat v. United States Department of Agriculture
2:15-cv-00605
E.D. Cal.Jul 29, 2015Background
- Plaintiffs (including Sierra Access Coalition) alleged Defendants (USDA et al.) violated FOIA by failing to timely respond to three FOIA requests submitted in Nov. 2010 and Sept. 2011; this was Plaintiffs’ twelfth cause of action.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), arguing production of all responsive nonexempt documents rendered the FOIA claim moot.
- Forest FOIA coordinator Elizabeth Schramel submitted a declaration attaching the documents she says were produced and two emails from Plaintiff Corky Lazzarino thanking Schramel for timely responses.
- Lazzarino filed a contrary declaration denying receipt and alleging a pattern of delay.
- Court treated Defendants’ motion as a factual Rule 12(b)(1) attack, considered extrinsic evidence, and found Defendants had produced the requested material.
- Court concluded none of the mootness exceptions (bad faith, recurring pattern, egregious delay) applied and dismissed the FOIA claim with prejudice; Plaintiffs’ motion for a sur-reply was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the FOIA claim remains justiciable after defendants produced documents | Lazzarino: documents were not received; claim not satisfied; pattern of delay exists | Defs: they produced all responsive, nonexempt documents (Schramel decl. + exhibits); production moots claim | Production moots the FOIA claim; claim dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction |
| Whether exceptions to mootness apply (bad faith, recurring pattern, egregious delay) | Plaintiffs: agency engaged in pattern of delays; seeks retention of claim | Defs: emails and production evidence show timely responses; no bad faith or pattern; not egregious | No exception applies—emails and evidence undercut bad-faith/pattern claims; delay not egregious |
| Appropriate procedural vehicle (Rule 12(b)(1) factual attack) | Plaintiffs relied on complaint allegations and Lazzarino decl. | Defs made factual jurisdictional attack and submitted evidence; court may consider extrinsic evidence | Court treated motion as factual attack, reviewed declarations/exhibits, and credited Defs’ evidence |
| Remedy and leave to amend | Plaintiffs sought declaratory relief and sur-reply; argued potential fee entitlement | Defs argued mootness bars relief; sur-reply unnecessary | Sur-reply denied; FOIA claim dismissed with prejudice because jurisdictional defect cannot be cured |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (court’s limited jurisdiction principle)
- Church of Scientology v. United States, 506 U.S. 9 (federal courts do not decide moot questions)
- Yonemoto v. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, 686 F.3d 681 (production of all nonexempt material moots FOIA claims)
- Tri-Valley Cares v. Dept. of Energy, [citation="203 F. App'x 105"] (exceptions to FOIA mootness where bad faith or pattern exists)
- Biodiversity Legal Found. v. Badgley, 309 F.3d 1166 (recurring pattern/bad-faith exception discussion)
- McCarthy v. United States, 850 F.2d 558 (courts may consider extrinsic evidence in factual jurisdictional attacks)