201 F. Supp. 3d 26
D.D.C.2016Background
- PETA submitted a FOIA request to CDC seeking records related to nonhuman primate imports under 42 C.F.R. § 71.53(n)(2) and registration/renewal under § 71.53(g)(1).
- CDC produced 1,575 responsive pages, partially redacted under Exemptions 4 and 6, and withheld some material.
- PETA challenged CDC’s search adequacy and the withholding under Exemption 4 (confidential commercial information).
- Three non-objecting importers (Central State Primate, Dallas Zoo Management, SBNL USA) submitted records that CDC did not contest disclosing; the court held disclosure appropriate for these records.
- The court conducted a de novo review on summary judgment motions and found four of five information categories confidential while the species names were not confidential for all ten importers.
- The court ordered corrections to the Vaughn Index and disclosure of impermissibly withheld information from the three non-objecting importers by September 9, 2016.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CDC’s search was adequate under FOIA. | PETA asserts search deficiencies, especially for registration/intent documents. | CDC shows a reasonable search including a targeted query of NHP registrations and follow-up searches. | Adequate search; CDC satisfied FOIA search obligation. |
| Whether Exemption 4 applies to the five requested categories. | Disclosures would not cause substantial competitive harm; information should be released. | Disclosures would cause substantial competitive harm and are confidential. | Four categories withheld; one category (species) not confidential for all; with three non-objecting importers, all five categories must be disclosed for those records. |
| Whether information can be segregated and non-exempt material disclosed. | CDC redactions are inconsistent; should disclose non-exempt material. | CDC provided explanations for redaction variances; segregation is adequate. | CDC shown to have reasonably segregated non-exempt information. |
| Whether disclosure harms government’s ability to obtain information in the future. | Disclosure would not impair; submitters are legally required to provide information. | Disclosure could deter future submissions. | Impairment theory rejected; government not shown to be harmed in future information gathering. |
Key Cases Cited
- Trans-Pac. Policing Agreement v. U.S. Customs Serv., 177 F.3d 1022 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (disclosure can reveal shipment data and competitive harm)
- Watkins v. U.S. Bureau of Customs & Border Prot., 643 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir. 2011) (shipment data can harm competitive position)
- Gilda Indus. v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection Bureau, 457 F. Supp. 2d 6 (D.D.C. 2006) (importer data could reveal supply chains and competitive risk)
- National Parks & Conservation Ass’n v. Morton, 498 F.2d 765 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (private competition harms and confidential treatment standards)
- Pub. Citizen Health Research Grp. v. Nat’l Institutes of Health, 209 F. Supp. 2d 37 (D.D.C. 2002) (criteria for determining “confidential” information)
- Biles v. Department of Health and Human Services, 931 F. Supp. 2d 211 (D.D.C. 2013) (asymmetric vs. symmetric harm analysis in Exemption 4)