Shah v. Department of Justice, 714 F. App'x 657

Shah, criminally accused, agreed to a polygraph, failed, and received only a one-page polygraph report.
Shah’s counsel requested the underlying polygraph charts, graphs, and raw data from the FBI/DOJ; the U.S. Attorney (DOJ) denied the request under Touhy procedures citing law enforcement privilege and waiver concerns.
Shah filed a civil suit seeking to compel disclosure, alleging (1) APA arbitrary-and-capricious action, (2) need to expand the administrative record, and (3) Brady (constitutional) and Nevada evidentiary violations.
The district court granted summary judgment for DOJ; Shah appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed (a) APA de novo, (b) administrative-record expansion for abuse of discretion, and (c) Brady/materiality issues and affirmed the district court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
APA challenge: DOJ arbitrary/capricious in withholding polygraph raw data	DOJ’s denial lacked adequate reason; disclosure with safeguards would avoid waiver	DOJ provided consultation and Touhy-based reasons; release risks waiver of law enforcement privilege and harms law enforcement interests	Affirmed — DOJ gave a plausible, expert-based reason; not arbitrary or capricious
Expansion of administrative record	Shah sought to add outside evidence alleging agency bad faith	DOJ opposed; district court found no showing of bad faith	Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; plaintiff failed to show bad faith
Brady / constitutional disclosure obligation	Brady requires disclosure of exculpatory material; raw data may be exculpatory or impeaching	Polygraph was failed by Shah; materials are not favorable/exculpatory or material under Nevada law	Affirmed — materials not Brady material or otherwise required; one-page report provided meets Nevada evidentiary rule
Effect on state criminal case	Shah argued civil denial should affect state proceedings	DOJ/appeals court noted federal disclosure obligations control civil Touhy response but do not dictate state-court evidence rules	Court stated its conclusions do not affect state criminal proceedings

Gardner v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 638 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 2011) (standard of review for agency summary-judgment orders)
Arizona ex rel. Darwin v. U.S. E.P.A., 815 F.3d 519 (9th Cir. 2016) (agency action need only provide a plausible, expert-based explanation)
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1983) (arbitrary-and-capricious standard requires rational connection between facts and decision)
Ranchers Cattlemen Action Legal Fund United Stockgrowers of Am. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 499 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2007) (application of APA review standard)
In re Pac. Pictures Corp., 679 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (voluntary third-party disclosure can waive certain privileges)
J & G Sales Ltd. v. Truscott, 473 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2007) (agency must provide satisfactory explanation under State Farm standard)
Midwater Trawlers Coop. v. Dep’t of Commerce, 393 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 2004) (abuse-of-discretion review for administrative-record supplementation)
Animal Def. Council v. Hodel, 840 F.2d 1432 (9th Cir. 1988) (courts may look outside the record if plaintiff shows agency bad faith)
United States v. Price, 566 F.3d 900 (9th Cir. 2009) (defining exculpatory/material evidence under Brady)
Smith v. Baldwin, 510 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2007) (materiality/prejudice under Brady standard)
Jackson v. State, 997 P.2d 121 (Nev. 2000) (Nevada rule on polygraph admissibility and materiality)