Tuesday, February 4, 2014
Re: Dog breeders and dealers sought to prevent defendant from disclosing number of dogs bought and sold each year and annual revenue from dog sales Disposition: Affirming district court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment
- Reverse FOIA: Concerning defendant's use of Exemption 4, the court finds that appellee "determined Exemption 4 did not apply because the . . . information was unlikely to cause substantial competitive harm to appellants" and "also determined that release would not significantly assist competitors in gauging the scale of a licensee's operation because similar information is already in the public domain." The court holds that appellant "fails to demonstrate that the Department's Exemption 4 conclusion was arbitrary or capricious." Concerning Exemption 6, the court finds that appellee "has reasonably explained why there is a sufficient public interest and why release of this information would not constitute a 'clearly unwarranted' invasion of personal privacy." The court holds that "[t]o prevail, appellants must demonstrate that conclusion is arbitrary and capricious or contrary to law, and they have failed to do so."
Court of Appeals
Updated August 6, 2014