226 F. Supp. 3d 39
D.D.C.2017Background
- PETA filed a FOIA request to HHS/CDC for importer-submitted records about nonhuman primate (NHP) imports; CDC produced 1,575 redacted pages from ten importers.
- In an August 18, 2016 opinion, the court held four categories of commercial information (animal quantities, crate descriptions, exporter names, airline carriers) exempt under FOIA Exemption 4; species names were not exempt.
- The court originally treated three importers (CSP, DZM, SNBL) as consenting to disclosure because they did not object to predisclosure notices; seven others had objected.
- After the opinion, CSP, DZM, and SNBL notified CDC they had been unaware of the notice and would have objected; they submitted declarations asserting competitive harm from disclosure.
- Defendant moved under Rule 60(b) to extend the Exemption 4 protections to those three importers; PETA cross-moved under Rule 60(b)(1) and (3) seeking narrower protection or reconsideration based on alleged misrepresentations and new records.
- The court granted Defendant’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion (extending Exemption 4 protection to CSP, DZM, SNBL), granted in part PETA’s Rule 60(b)(1) motion (ordered that quantity and crate info for WWP and PPI are not exempt), and denied PETA’s Rule 60(b)(3) motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court should extend Exemption 4 protection to CSP, DZM, SNBL after they asserted they were unaware of predisclosure notice | Non-binding; PETA opposed extending protection for CSP and SNBL because they failed to object earlier | The three companies were unaware of the notice and submitted timely declarations showing competitive harm; equitable relief appropriate | Granted under Rule 60(b)(6): Exemption 4 protection extended to CSP, DZM, SNBL |
| Whether relief is available under Rule 60(b)(2) for newly discovered evidence | PETA argued Rule 60(b)(2) inapplicable / timeliness issues | Defendant originally moved under Rule 59 timely; Rule 60(b)(2) is inapplicable because evidence was discovered in time for Rule 59 | Denied as to Rule 60(b)(2) |
| Whether animal quantity and crate-description data are exempt for WWP and PPI | PETA: Defendant failed to meet burden because WWP and PPI did not request redaction of those fields for their own records | Defendant relied on industry-wide declarations showing typical confidentiality and competitive harm | Court: Quantity and crate info for WWP and PPI are not exempt; but Exemption 4 still applies to those categories for other importers based on broader record |
| Whether importer declarations constituted fraud/misrepresentation warranting relief under Rule 60(b)(3) | PETA: Declarations are misleading because importers cooperate and share information; thus misrepresentation of competition/confidentiality | Declarations accurately describe competitive aspects and occasional cooperation does not negate competition; no clear-and-convincing proof of fraud or prejudice | Denied: PETA failed to show clear-and-convincing evidence of fraud or that it was prejudiced |
Key Cases Cited
- Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193 (1950) (Rule 60(b)(6) relief requires extraordinary circumstances)
- Good Luck Nursing Home v. Harris, 636 F.2d 572 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (Rule 60(b)(6) relief should be sparingly used; allows correction when previously undisclosed facts render judgment unjust)
- Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380 (1993) (mutual exclusivity and timeliness considerations among Rule 60(b) subsections)
- FG Hemisphere Assocs., LLC v. Democratic Republic of Congo, 447 F.3d 835 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (excusable neglect is an equitable determination)
- Nat’l Parks & Conservation Ass’n v. Kleppe, 547 F.2d 673 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (exemption 4 protects confidential commercial information in competitive industries)