Pub. Citizen Health Research Grp. v. Acosta
363 F. Supp. 3d 1
| D.C. Cir. | 2018Background
- OSHA issued an Electronic Reporting Rule (2016) requiring covered employers to submit Forms 300, 301, and 300A electronically on a phased schedule; the initial deadline for Form 300A was July 1, 2017 and for Forms 300/301 was July 1, 2018.
- After the first deadline passed, OSHA announced in May 2018 that covered establishments were required to submit only Form 300A and that OSHA would not accept Forms 300 and 301 while it reconsidered the rule and pursued notice-and-comment rulemaking.
- Plaintiffs (three public-health organizations) sued under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), alleging OSHA unlawfully suspended the filing requirement without notice-and-comment and that the suspension was arbitrary and capricious; they sought declaratory and injunctive relief and moved for a preliminary injunction.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of standing and for nonreviewability under the APA (agency enforcement discretion), arguing redressability was speculative because OSHA might withhold collected data under FOIA exemptions and employers might not submit belated reports.
- The court denied the motion to dismiss, finding organizations plausibly alleged informational injury, traceability, and redressability (FOIA disclosure and segregation likely to yield useful, de-identified data), and held the suspension was reviewable (amounted to revoking/amending a rule).
- The court denied the preliminary injunction because Plaintiffs failed to show irreparable harm: speculative future rescission, delay in bringing the motion, and lack of a concrete showing that delayed access would be "certain and great" and beyond remediation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing (informational injury) | Organizations are injured because loss of OSHA-collected data impairs core research/advocacy functions | Plaintiffs cannot show redress because even if OSHA collected data it would withhold identifying fields under FOIA and employers might not submit late | Court: Standing shown — organizations plausibly alleged injury, traceability, and likely redress via FOIA for segregable, de-identified data |
| Redressability re: FOIA exemptions | De-identified incident fields on Forms 300/301 would be released; Exemptions 6/7(C) unlikely to bar disclosure of most useful fields | Exemptions 6/7(C) protect medical/identifying data; OSHA would withhold and thus relief would not redress injury | Court: Likely Plaintiffs could obtain useful, segregable non-identifying data via FOIA; redressability satisfied |
| Reviewability / Committed to agency discretion | Suspension of the Rule was substantive (tantamount to amending/revoking rule) and therefore reviewable under the APA | The action was an exercise of enforcement/prosecutorial discretion and presumptively unreviewable under Heckler v. Chaney | Court: Action was a suspension of a regulatory deadline (rule change) and not shielded by enforcement-discretion presumption; APA review available |
| Preliminary injunction — irreparable harm | Delay in access makes data stale; rescission of rule through rulemaking could make harm permanent | Plaintiffs delayed seeking relief and injuries are speculative; any harms are remediable through litigation/FOIA | Court: Plaintiffs failed to show "certain and great" irreparable harm; PI denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (Plaintiff informational-injury and standing framework)
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (preliminary injunction standard and irreparable-harm requirement)
- Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (presumption of unreviewability for enforcement decisions)
- Sierra Club v. Jackson, 648 F.3d 848 (APA reviewability principles; dismissal standard for §701(a)(2) claims)
- Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (limits to §701(a)(2) where there is law to apply)
- Robbins v. Reagan, 780 F.2d 37 (agency reversal and judicial review of substantive policy changes)
- Mead Data Cent., Inc. v. United States Dep't of the Air Force, 566 F.2d 242 (FOIA segregability principle)
- League of Women Voters of the United States v. Newby, 838 F.3d 1 (organizational irreparable-harm recognized where injury is time-sensitive)
- National Wrestling Coaches Ass'n v. Department of Education, 366 F.3d 930 (courts should not assume massive noncompliance when evaluating redressability)