Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Dep't of Agric., No. 17-00949, 2017 WL 2352009 (N.D. Cal. May 31, 2017) (Orrick, J.)

Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Dep't of Agric., No. 17-00949, 2017 WL 2352009 (N.D. Cal. May 31, 2017) (Orrick, J.)

Re:  Blocked public access to Animal Care Information Search ("ACIS") database and Enforcement Actions ("EA") database

Disposition:  Denying plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction

• Litigation Considerations, Preliminary Injunctions, Litigation Considerations, Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies & Proactive Disclosures:  The court holds that "[a] preliminary injunction is not appropriate."  The court relates that, "citing potential privacy concerns, the USDA blocked public access to both the ACIS and EA databases so that it could conduct a review of the documents posted online to ensure that they do not contain information that should be redacted or shielded from public disclosure."  "Plaintiffs . . . assert that by blocking access to the APHIS databases, the USDA breached its obligations under the [FOIA]'s reading-room provision, which requires agencies to make frequently requested documents available for public inspection."  The court relates that "[p]laintiffs must demonstrate that the law and facts clearly favor the relief they have requested in order to obtain a mandatory injunction."  The court finds that "[t]hey have not done so."  "They are not likely to succeed on their FOIA claim because there is no public remedy for violations of the reading room provision – courts may order production of documents to specific plaintiffs but cannot mandate publication to the public as a whole."  "They have not exhausted administrative remedies on their reading room claims either."  "Plaintiffs' argument that there is no requirement to exhaust administrative remedies when seeking to enforce section 552(a)(2) is not supported by the language of FOIA or the precedent plaintiffs cite."  "They are also not likely to succeed on their claim under the APA because FOIA provides plaintiffs an adequate alternative remedy."  "And they cannot establish that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction or that the balance of harms weighs in their favor in light of the on-going review and privacy interests asserted by the USDA."  "Plaintiffs' vague allegations of economic injury resulting from the need to file FOIA requests are insufficient to demonstrate that they are likely to suffer irreparable injury."