People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. National Institutes of Health, Department of Health & Human Services
409 U.S. App. D.C. 15
| D.C. Cir. | 2014Background
- PETA FOIA requests NIH for records on Auburn University Scott-Ritchey Center investigations into three named researchers.
- NIH issued Glomar responses (do not confirm or deny) to second and third requests under FOIA Exemptions 6 and 7(C).
- District court upheld NIH Glomar responses as to the existence of investigations under Exemption 7(C).
- PETA challenged, arguing the agency’s blanket Glomar responses were improper and requested additional categories of documents.
- On appeal, court affirms Glomar as to documents confirming investigations, but vacates and remands regarding documents that could show NIH received complaints or conducted investigations not targeting the named researchers.
- The case centers on balancing privacy interests of researchers against public interest in NIH investigatory processes under FOIA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Exemption 7(C) permits a blanket Glomar for second request | PETA seeks any records; Glomar justifies disclosure. | NIH may withhold to protect privacy of researchers. | Glomar upheld for confirmation of existence; parts of request may require non-Glomar search. |
| Whether documents showing NIH received complaints but did not investigate fall within Exemption 7(C) | Requests such documents; broader public interest. | Such records still implicate privacy if they reveal investigations. | Glomar not justified for those categories; remand for search of non-targeted investigations. |
| Whether confidentiality agreements relating to an investigation are subject to disclosure | Confidentiality docs relevant to NIH oversight. | Such agreements implicate privacy interests. | Affirmed as to absence of targeted investigation; vacated as to broader disclosure; remand suggested. |
| What is the proper scope of the remand and synthesis of exemptions on remand | Reopen with broader search. | Limit Glomar to researchers’ investigations. | Remand to search for documents showing non-targeted investigations; limited Glomar for targeted ones. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press v. D.O.J., 489 U.S. 749 (U.S. (1989)) (FOIA mandate of disclosure; balance with exemptions; public interest standard)
- Roth v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 642 F.3d 1161 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (Glomar applicability when existence of records could invade privacy)
- Nation Magazine v. U.S. Customs Serv., 71 F.3d 885 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (Broad public interest test; caution against blanket Glomar for individuals)
- Jefferson v. Dep’t of Justice, 284 F.3d 172 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (Privacy interests of targets; supports Glomar protection)
- Frugone v. CIA, 169 F.3d 772 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (Official acknowledgment significance in Glomar decisions)