Case Information
*1 ‐ v. U.S. Dep’t Health Human Servs., et al. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 THIS COURT = S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH NOTATION A SUMMARY ORDER @ A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At stated term Appeals Second Circuit, at Thurgood Marshall Courthouse, Foley Square, York, th day March, two thousand seventeen PRESENT: ROBERT D. SACK,
RAYMOND LOHIER, JR.,
Circuit Judges,
GREGORY H. WOODS, Judge.
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff ‐ Appellant , No. ‐ Services,
Defendants Appellees Gregory Woods, Southern sitting designation. *2 Philip Morris USA, ITG Brands, LLC,
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Santa Fe
Natural Company, Inc.,
Intervenors ---------------------------------------------------------- FOR APPELLANT: Kyle Thomas Rozema, pro se Chicago, IL. FOR APPELLEES: Karen Folster Lesperance, William F. Larkin, Assistant United States Attorneys, for Richard S. Hartunian, Attorney Northern District Albany, NY; James C. Fraser, Associate Chief Counsel, Food Drug Silver Spring, MD. INTERVENORS: Mark S. Brown, Ashley C. Parrish, King &
Spalding LLP, Washington, D.C.; Kristen R. Ittig, Geoffrey Michael, Arnold & Porter, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Mark Lynch, Covington Burling LLP, Washington, D.C.
Appeal a judgment District Court Northern York (Glenn T. Suddaby, Chief
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, DECREED judgment pro se, appeals judgment (Suddaby, C.J.) granting summary favor Administration (“FDA”) *3 and Services with respect to Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) Rozema requested that the FDA disclose data had gathered detailing the quantity menthol in cigarettes by brand. The that the information was properly withheld under FOIA’s exemption trade secrets and confidential commercial information. assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and record the prior proceedings, to which we refer only as necessary explain our decision affirm. exempts from disclosure materials that contain “trade secrets and
commercial or financial information obtained person and privileged or confidential.” U.S.C. Rozema acknowledges the data he requested—the quantity menthol cigarettes brand—contains trade secrets and confidential commercial information within meaning is, therefore, exempt disclosure. See Inner Press/Cmty. on Move Bd. Governors Fed. Reserve Sys., F.3d (2d Cir. 2006). has not identified any statutory provision requires disclosure requested The FDA has not included menthol potentially harmful constituents, so agency not required related data under Family Smoking Prevention Control Act. §§ 387d(d), (e). Nor has Congress obligated *4 1 add constituents id. 2 § 387g(e)(3). We therefore conclude correctly applied deny Rozema’s 5 have considered remaining arguments conclude they are without merit. For foregoing reasons, COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk