Peta v. U.S. Dept. Of Agriculture
918 F.3d 151
| D.C. Cir. | 2019Background
- PETA sued USDA under FOIA § 552(a)(2) after APHIS removed a large set of Animal Welfare Act–related records from its website during a review intended to remove personal information.
- Plaintiffs sought an order requiring immediate reposting of the records (or the information they contained) and injunctive/declaratory relief, arguing § 552(a)(2) mandates electronic public access.
- The district court found many categories had been reposted and dismissed as moot; it rejected PETA's voluntary-cessation arguments and denied discovery into USDA’s motives.
- The district court refused to address new redactions applied to reposted records, holding PETA’s complaint did not challenge those redactions.
- On appeal, the D.C. Circuit held the complaint plausibly sought restoration of pre-takedown information (not just documents), reversed as to the redactions issue, and remanded for merits consideration and for factual clarification on USDA’s intent for continued postings of some categories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaint encompassed challenges to new redactions on reposted records | PETA: complaint sought restoration of removed information and thus includes challenges to subsequent redactions | USDA: complaint only attacked wholesale removal, not later redactions | Court: Complaint reasonably read to seek original pre-takedown information; remand to consider redactions on the merits |
| Whether reposting reposted records moots claims (voluntary cessation doctrine) | PETA: USDA may return to takedowns; reposting does not satisfy heavy burden to show non-recurrence | USDA: reposting and public statements show takedown was temporary and will not recur | Court: Mootness affirmed for research reports (clear commitment to continue posting); remanded as to inspection reports and entity lists for clarification of ongoing intent |
| Whether district court abused discretion in denying discovery into USDA's motives | PETA: discovery needed to rebut government presumption of regularity and show risk of recurrence | USDA: representations and conduct suffice; discovery unnecessary | Court: No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed given possibility that clear agency commitments would moot claims |
| Whether plaintiffs failed to state claims for certain categories (animal inventories and part of regulatory records) | PETA: those categories covered by § 552(a)(2) | USDA: complaint insufficiently pleaded coverage under § 552(a)(2) | Court: District court dismissal without prejudice stands; PETA did not appeal these rulings |
Key Cases Cited
- Kimberlin v. Dep't of Justice, 139 F.3d 944 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (FOIA focuses on information, not documents)
- Mead Data Cent., Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Air Force, 566 F.2d 242 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (same information-vs-document principle)
- Concentrated Phosphate Exp. Ass'n v. United States, 393 U.S. 199 (1968) (voluntary cessation doctrine; court may inquire into likelihood of recurrence)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (heavy burden on defendant to show no reasonable expectation of recurrence)
- Nat'l Archives & Records Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157 (2004) (presumption of regularity for government action)
- Sossamon v. Lone Star State of Texas, 560 F.3d 316 (5th Cir. 2009) (governmental declarations given weight in voluntary-cessation analysis)
- America Cargo Transp., Inc. v. United States, 625 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2010) (government commitments can moot claims when sufficiently clear)
- Troiano v. Supervisor of Elections in Palm Beach Cty., Fla., 382 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 2004) (analysis of exception to voluntary-cessation rule)
- Ragsdale v. Turnock, 841 F.2d 1358 (7th Cir. 1988) (government self-correction may preclude repetition where no realistic prospect of recurrence)
- Haase v. Sessions, 835 F.2d 902 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (12(b)(1) proceedings allow inquiry beyond pleadings to establish jurisdiction)