285 F. Supp. 3d 307
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- APHIS removed various Animal Welfare Act–related records from its website on Feb 3, 2017, citing a need to remove personal information.
- PETA and several organizations sued under FOIA’s reading-room provision, challenging removal of: annual facility reports (including animal inventories), inspection reports, lists of licensees, and regulatory correspondence/enforcement records.
- After briefing, the Department completed a review and reposted most records (annual reports, recent inspection reports except inventories, and a monthly list of licensees); some regulatory/enforcement records and animal inventories remained off the website.
- PETA sought declaratory and injunctive relief compelling continued electronic availability without individual FOIA requests; the Department moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, lack of exhaustion, and ripeness.
- The Court found reposting mooted claims as to the reposted records and concluded the complaint failed to plausibly plead that the remaining withheld records fall within FOIA’s reading-room categories; it dismissed the reposted-records claims as moot and the non-moot claims without prejudice for failure to state a claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reposting of records mooted PETA’s request for injunctive and declaratory relief | Reposting does not fully cure harm; PETA still seeks declaratory relief and review of redactions | Reposting provided the injunctive relief sought; removal was temporary to redact personal information | Moot: injunctive relief moot as to reposted records; declaratory claim also moot because challenge was to an isolated action and voluntary cessation was not reasonably expected to recur |
| Whether remaining withheld records are reading-room records (5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(2) categories) | The records qualify as either final opinions or “frequently requested” records because they were previously posted and are of public interest | Complaint fails to allege the withheld records are final adjudicative opinions or that they were released via FOIA / requested three or more times or designated as likely to be repeatedly requested | Dismissed for failure to state a claim: complaint does not plausibly allege the remaining records fall into reading-room categories |
| Whether PETA must exhaust administrative remedies / ripeness for reading-room claim | Not necessary because reading-room provision imposes affirmative posting duty independent of individual requests | PETA did not submit FOIA requests and claim may be unripe until agency review completed | Court did not decide exhaustion/ripeness because dismissal on mootness and failure-to-plead grounds was dispositive |
| Whether PETA’s discovery and supplemental filings could cure pleading deficiencies | Discovery and declarations show requests and harm, so complaint can be supplemented | Court limited to complaint on Rule 12(b)(6); supplemental affidavits cannot be considered absent leave to amend | Motion for discovery denied as moot; dismissal without prejudice leaves PETA free to amend and replead with proper allegations |
Key Cases Cited
- Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 846 F.3d 1235 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (explaining FOIA’s affirmative reading-room duty and agency obligations)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleadings under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (2016) (Article III mootness principles)
- McBryde v. Comm. to Review Circuit Council Conduct & Disability Orders, 264 F.3d 52 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (mootness requires live case or controversy)
- City of Hous. v. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 24 F.3d 1421 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (mooting of discrete agency action moots related declaratory claim)
- Qassim v. Bush, 466 F.3d 1073 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (voluntary cessation exception to mootness)
- Tereshchuk v. Bureau of Prisons, 67 F. Supp. 3d 441 (D.D.C.) (documents qualify as final opinions only if they have precedential or working-law effect)