Animal Welfare Inst. v. Dep't of Agric., No. 18-06626, 2019 WL 3083025 (W.D.N.Y. July 15, 2019)

Animal Welfare Inst. v. Dep't of Agric., No. 18-06626, 2019 WL 3083025 (W.D.N.Y. July 15, 2019)

Re:  Request for records concerning implementation of Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA)

Disposition:  Denying defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state claim and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

• Litigation Considerations, Mootness and Other Grounds for Dismissal:  The court holds that "Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claim brought pursuant to Section 552(a)(3) is denied as moot" because "Plaintiffs are alleging a violation of Section 552(a)(2), rather than a violation of Section 552(a)(3)."
   
• Litigation Considerations, Pleadings:  First, the court holds that "Defendants' request that FSIS be dismissed because it is not a proper party to be sued under the FOIA is denied."  "[T]he Court declines to dismiss [the Food Safety Inspection Service ("FSIS")] as a party on this basis."
  
  Second, the court holds that "Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is denied."  The court finds that "Defendants concede that Plaintiffs have satisfied the first prong of the reading room provision by alleging that FSIS released the documents at least one time, by providing the documents to Plaintiffs."  Additionally, the court finds that "[defendant's] allegations provide sufficient information to survive a motion to dismiss by articulating that the broad range of records requested by Plaintiff – i.e., requests for Noncompliance Records and Memoranda of Interview covering the time period up to May 2018 – have been requested at least three times."  "Whether Plaintiffs will substantiate their claims remains to be seen."  "However, at this stage of the litigation, Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient factual information that their FOIA claim is plausible on its face; in other words, to give Defendants notice of the claim and the grounds upon which it rests."
   
• Proactive Disclosures & Litigation Considerations, Jurisdiction:  The court holds that "it is not necessary for the Court to decide, at this stage of the litigation, whether it has the power to grant Plaintiffs injunctive relief of ordering Defendants to produce the relevant documents to the general public under the reading room provision."  "The Court recognizes that it may convert Defendants' 12(b)(1) motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction to a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim."  "However, the Court declines to do so in this case."  "In declining to do so, the Court is particularly cognizant of the absence of controlling authority holding that the Court does not have the power to order injunctive relief when an agency violates 5 U.S.C. § 522(a)(2)."  "Defendants' argument . . . suggests that there is virtually no meaningful remedy for parties aggrieved under the reading room provision."  "This runs contrary to Section 552's purpose, which is to 'require agencies of the Federal Government to make certain agency information available for public inspection and copying and to establish and enable enforcement of the right of any person to obtain access to the records of such agencies, subject to statutory exemptions, for any public or private purpose.'"
   
• Litigation Considerations, Venue:  The court holds that "Defendants' motion for a change of venue is denied."  "Considering all of the relevant factors and giving substantial deference to Plaintiffs' choice of forum, the Court finds that Defendants have not shown by clear and convincing evidence that venue is more appropriate in the District of Columbia."  "Defendants have failed to satisfy their burden to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the above-mentioned factors favor transfer to the District of Columbia."  "Defendants make only conclusory, unsupported statements regarding the convenience of the parties, and fail to address several of the above-mentioned factors, including Plaintiff's choice of forum, the convenience of witnesses, the relative ease of access to sources of proof, the locus of operative facts, ability to compel unwilling witnesses, and the relative means of the parties."