Jay Ganesh v. United States, 658 F. App'x 217

Background

Ganesh and Patel own a convenience store in Inez, Kentucky and were permanently disqualified from SNAP by the USDA Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) for suspected trafficking.
FNS analysis of EBT data identified suspicious patterns: 118 instances of the same EBT card used at the store within 24 hours (many for identical amounts); many customers spending nearly entire monthly allotments quickly; 275 transactions characterized as unusually large (up to $253.98 vs. Kentucky convenience-store average $7.09).
An FNS site visit found the store’s layout and inventory inconsistent with legitimate large grocery purchases (limited food selection, small counter, no carts).
The Administrative Review Branch concluded FNS established a prima facie case of trafficking by a preponderance of the evidence and that plaintiffs offered no reasonable explanations; SNAP regulations mandate permanent disqualification for trafficking.
Plaintiffs sought de novo judicial review under 7 U.S.C. § 2023(a); the district court granted summary judgment for the government, finding abundant evidence of trafficking.
On appeal plaintiffs argued the district court relied on unauthenticated documents (Saunders), evidence was only circumstantial, SNAP rules prevented them from identifying card users, Patel’s affidavit created factual disputes, and high soft-drink sales explained large purchases. The Sixth Circuit affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court erred by relying on unauthenticated documentary evidence at summary judgment	Saunders requires sworn/authenticated documents; evidence was “unverified and unsworn”	Plaintiffs waived authenticity objection by not raising it below; Rule 56 (post-2010) permits citation to record materials and objections must be made below	Waived; no gross miscarriage of justice to decline considering the belated Saunders argument; Rule 56 changes make the objection less persuasive
Whether evidence of trafficking was insufficient because circumstantial	Circumstantial evidence and Patel’s affidavit create genuine disputes about whether transactions were legitimate	Electronic EBT patterns, unusually large/rapid repeated purchases, and store visit provide preponderant circumstantial proof of trafficking	Circumstantial evidence supported trafficking finding; plaintiffs failed to raise material fact issues as to each alleged violation
Whether SNAP regulations’ limits on identifying card users barred plaintiffs from discovering exculpatory evidence	Plaintiffs couldn't trace specific cardholders to rebut patterns	Burden rests on plaintiffs in de novo review to show invalidity by preponderance; inability to identify users doesn't relieve that burden	Plaintiffs’ inability to identify cardholders did not excuse failure to raise material disputes on key transactions
Whether alternative explanations (e.g., Coca‑Cola contract causing bulk purchases) explained transactions	Market advantage and distributor contract explained large/multiple purchases	Some transactions (e.g., two purchases >$50 within minutes) were unexplained and inconsistent with legitimate sales patterns	Alternative explanations insufficient to create genuine issues of material fact for all challenged transactions; summary judgment affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Goldstein v. United States, 9 F.3d 521 (6th Cir. 1993) (severity of SNAP sanction not reviewable in de novo judicial proceeding)
Warren v. United States, 932 F.2d 582 (6th Cir. 1991) (burden on aggrieved store to prove invalidity of administrative action by preponderance)
Bakal Bros. v. United States, 105 F.3d 1085 (6th Cir. 1997) (standard for appellate review of FNS disqualification)
McClain’s Mkt. v. United States, [citation="214 F. App'x 502"] (6th Cir. 2006) (plaintiff must raise material issues of fact as to each alleged violation to survive summary judgment)
Saunders v. United States, 507 F.2d 33 (6th Cir. 1974) (pre‑2010 rule requiring sworn/authenticated summary judgment materials)
Wiley v. United States, 20 F.3d 222 (6th Cir. 1994) (failure to object below waives challenge to evidentiary materials)
Alexander v. CareSource, 576 F.3d 551 (6th Cir. 2009) (unauthenticated documents ordinarily do not meet Rule 56 requirements)