Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Dep't of Agric., No. 18-16327, 2019 WL 3770822 (9th Cir. Aug. 12, 2019) (Fletcher, J.)

Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Dep't of Agric., No. 18-16327, 2019 WL 3770822 (9th Cir. Aug. 12, 2019) (Fletcher, J.)

Re:  Challenging denial of expedited processing of FOIA requests concerning animal welfare

Disposition:  Affirming district court's grant of government's motion for summary judgment

• Litigation Considerations, Jurisdiction:  The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit holds that "[t]hough we conclude on the merits that no FOIA violation occurred, the violations that [the requester] alleges meet the three prongs of [the] 'pattern or practice' test."  "First, the FOIA violation alleged with respect to [the subject tiger] was not an isolated incident."  "[The requester] alleges other instances in which USDA denied expedited processing to [the requester] based on USDA's definition of 'individual.'"  "Second, [the requester] was 'personally harmed' because it filed several requests and was denied expedited processing on the basis of the challenged policy."  "Third, [the requester] is likely to be harmed in the future by USDA's policy."  "[The requester's] mission centers on animal welfare, and [the requester] is likely to make future FOIA requests where it believes there is 'an imminent threat to the life or physical safety' of an animal."
   
• Procedural Requirements, Expedited Processing:  The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit relates that "FOIA provides for expedited processing of records if 'failure to obtain [the] requested records on an expedited basis . . . could reasonably be expected to pose an imminent threat to the life or physical safety of an individual[.]'"  The court holds that "[w]here, as here, 'individual' is used as a noun with no corresponding group or category, its plain meaning is 'human being.'"  The court relates that "[t]he complaint sought a declaration that the term 'individual' in § 552(a)(6)(E)(v)(I) includes an animal, and a permanent injunction requiring USDA to treat animals as 'individuals' for the purposes of expedited processing under the statute."  "[The court] do[es] not deny that animal welfare is an important goal that has been recognized by Congress in a variety of statutes."  "It has not, however, been recognized in FOIA's expedited processing provision."  "Congress chose to limit the definition of 'compelling need' to prioritize certain records for expedited processing – specifically, records whose delayed release would pose an imminent threat to the life or physical safety of a human being."  "[The requester] may disagree with Congress's policy choice."  "But [the court is] not at liberty to override congressional intent and read a statutory term contrary to its plain meaning."