Synopsys, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Nos. 20-16414 & 20-16416, 2022 WL 1501094 (9th Cir. May 12, 2022) (per curiam)

Synopsys, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Nos. 20-16414 & 20-16416, 2022 WL 1501094 (9th Cir. May 12, 2022) (per curiam)

Re:  Request for "a report containing some of [appellant] Synopsys's employment data ('EEO-1 report')"

Disposition:  Affirming in part and dismissing in part district court case number 20-16416; affirming district court case number 20-16414

• Reverse FOIA; Litigation Considerations & Exemption 4:  "[Appellant] has appealed the partial denial of its motion to intervene in the FOIA Action as well as the grant of summary judgment to DOL in the Reverse-FOIA Action."  "We affirm the district court in both appeals."  "The district court held that [appellant's] motion to intervene was untimely, except for the purposes of appealing the judgment."  "The district court did not abuse its discretion in so concluding."  "[Appellant] argues that it had no reason to intervene earlier."  "We disagree."  "For at least two reasons, it should have been clear earlier in this litigation that [appellant's] interests were not adequately represented by DOL."  "First, the question at the heart of [appellant's] proposed crossclaim—and the source of disagreement between DOL and [appellant] —is whether DOL had discretion to disclose the EEO-1 report or whether the Trade Secrets Act removed that discretion and dictated mandatory withholding."  "Throughout the time between the filing of the Complaint and the entry of summary judgment in the FOIA Action, [appellant] made the strategic decision not to attempt to intervene and to allow DOL to litigate the FOIA claim, even though it was apparent that [the appellant's] and DOL's interests and positions were not fully aligned."  "Second, DOL was never in a position to advance the arguments [appellant] wants to make about the commercial nature of its employment data."  "[Appellant] now argues that it should be permitted to intervene because, first, DOL lacks sufficient company-specific knowledge to defend the FOIA claim on the commercial prong and, second, [appellant] did not realize until the district court's summary judgment hearing on December 5, 2019 that the case might be decided on that prong."  "But there was always a chance that the district court would focus its analysis on the commercial prong, and if DOL lacks the knowledge to represent [appellant's] interests on that prong, that should have been clear from the outset of the litigation."  "We also affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment to DOL in the Reverse-FOIA Action."  "We agree with DOL that GTE Sylvania, Inc. v. Consumers Union of the U.S., Inc. . . . controls the outcome on the cross-motions for summary judgment and forecloses [appellant's] reverse-FOIA claim, in light of the district court's ordered disclosure of [appellant's] EEO-1 report."  "[T]he district court's conclusion in the FOIA Action that [appellant's] EEO-1 report fell outside the scope of Exemption 4 necessarily precludes [appellant] from winning relief on its reverse-FOIA claim—which is premised on a Trade Secrets Act theory—absent re-litigation of the same issues decided in the FOIA Action."  "GTE Sylvania forecloses such re-litigation of FOIA issues in a subsequent action."