Skip to main content

Telematch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., No. 19-2372, 2020 WL 7014206 (D.D.C. Nov. 27, 2020) (Kelly, J.)

Date

Telematch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., No. 19-2372, 2020 WL 7014206 (D.D.C. Nov. 27, 2020) (Kelly, J.)

Re:  Request for records that include what USDA calls "Farm Numbers," "Tract Numbers," and "Customer Numbers"

Disposition:  Granting defendant's motion for summary judgment; denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment

  • Exemption 3:  "The Court holds that USDA properly invoked Exemption 3 to withhold the Farm and Tract Numbers."  The court relates that "USDA points to Section 8791 as an applicable withholding statute."  "That provision states that 'the Secretary, any officer or employee of the Department of Agriculture, or any contractor or cooperator of the Department, shall not disclose (A) information provided by an agricultural producer or owner of agricultural land concerning the agricultural operation, farming or conservation practices, or the land itself, in order to participate in programs of the Department; or (B) geospatial information otherwise maintained by the Secretary about agricultural land or operations for which information described in subparagraph (A) is provided.'"  "The Court agrees that, based on 'the language of the statute on its face,' Section 8791 is a withholding statute, a point [Telemark, d/b/a Farm Marked iD ("FMID")] does not contest."  Next, the court notes that "Section 8791 does not define 'geospatial information.'"  "'In the absence of an express definition, [a court] must give a term its ordinary meaning.'"  "And courts look to the ordinary meaning of a statute 'at the time Congress enacted the statute.'"  "Congress included Section 8791 in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, Pub. L. 110-234, 122 Stat. 923 (2008), so the Court looks to dictionaries from around that time."  "One defines 'geospatial' as 'relating to or denoting data that is associated with a particular location.'"  "Another defines the term as '[o]f or relating to analysis of geographical data from multiple sources and technologies, using statistical methods and often resulting in computer visualization of locations under study.'"  The court finds that "the contemporary dictionary definitions and OMB supplemental guidance all teach that 'geospatial information' is a broad term that includes information referring to a specific physical location on Earth."  The court finds that "[a]pplying this definition, Farm and Tract Numbers are geospatial information."  "Like GPS coordinates, they refer to specific physical locations; in this case, they refer to polygons representing physical boundaries of plots of land on Earth."  The court relates that "[plaintiff] argues that, because the numbers are 'simply alpha-numerical codes that the USDA creates and assigns,' they are not geospatial information."  "But [the court finds that] any system of identifying specific geographic locations – including, for example, GPS coordinates – must ultimately be designed and implemented by someone."
     
  • Exemption 6:  The court holds that "disclosure of [certain] Customer Numbers '"would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."'"  "Thus, USDA may withhold them under Exemption 6."  First, "because tying Customer Numbers to these public records can reveal [certain] information, including 'at least a portion of the [farm] owner’s personal finances,' the Court finds that they are 'similar files' for the purposes of Exemption 6."  The court finds that "[t]here is no dispute that Customer Numbers apply to individuals or entities that have a record in USDA databases."  "Moreover, USDA has shown that, with the aid of publicly-available information, the public can connect Customer Numbers to those individuals or entities and reveal their personal information."  Second, the court finds that "[c]ustomer Numbers implicate a privacy interest under Exemption 6."  The court finds that "USDA represents that Customer Numbers can be connected to publicly available data to form a 'comprehensive picture' of the associated businesses."  "True, the Customer Numbers by themselves . . . disclose nothing about an individual farmer to the public, including the farmer's identity."  "Nor do the numbers contain information that allows for a direct inference about different farmers' finances."  "But the disclosure of the numbers, when combined with other public data, could lead to identification of individual farmers and reveal information about their farms and financial status."  Third, regarding plaintiff's first asserted public interest that "'[w]ithout [the Farm, Tract, and Customer Numbers], the USDA (or the public) has no ability to determine how well the USDA is administering any farm programs,'" "the Court has already held that Farm and Tract Numbers are excepted from disclosure under Exemption 3 because they are geospatial information."  "[Plaintiff] does not explain how releasing only Customer Numbers could inform the public about USDA's program administration; all its examples rely on the release of all three numbers together."  Additionally, the court finds that "there is no evidence in the record to support [plaintiff's] allegations of fraud in USDA programs."  "And baseless allegations of fraud do not support finding a public interest for purposes of Exemption 6 disclosure."  Regarding plaintiff's second asserted public interest, the court finds that "[k]nowing how 'farmers are using their land,' . . . or whether they are 'accurately reporting data to qualify' for benefits . . . does not directly shed light on USDA's operations or activities."  "And even if there is a general public interest in revealing USDA program participant conduct, 'that interest falls outside the ambit of the public interest that the FOIA was enacted to serve.'"
     
  • Litigation Considerations, "Pattern-or-Practice" Claims:  The court holds that "the record does not 'evidence[ ] a policy or practice of delayed disclosure' by USDA."  "USDA appears to have substantially complied with FOIA's deadlines in this case, with the exception of [plaintiff's] administrative appeal, which, as explained below, in any event cannot be a source of injury for [plaintiff] because the Court has held that the Farm, Tract, and Customer Numbers are exempt from disclosure."  "And merely that USDA has an administrative appeal backlog is not enough to show a policy or practice of unlawful delay."  "Thus, [plaintiff] identifies no policy or practice that threatens it with future injury."  The court explains that "there is scant evidence that USDA ignored FOIA's deadlines in this case, at least as far as its responses to [plaintiff's] FOIA requests go."  "In fact, the record tells the opposite story."  "USDA met FOIA's deadlines in processing at least five out of the seven requests FMID submitted to the agency, and [plaintiff's] claims to the contrary overlook its own obligations under FOIA."  Additionally, the court finds that "[plaintiff] cannot base any injury on USDA's failure to timely respond to its requests relating to the Farm, Tract, and Customer Numbers, or to adjudicate its administrative appeal about those records."  "And as far as the non-exempt records without Farm, Tract, and Customer Numbers that FMID requested and received are concerned, . . . [plaintiff] has failed to assert that it will continue to request them in the future."  "Thus, taken as a whole, USDA's responsiveness 'undermines the contention that [USDA] is engaged in a persistent practice' of unlawful delay, . . . and belies any claim that it has a policy or practice of systematically ignoring FOIA's requirements."  "'[I]f the speed of replying to requests in any agency is not satisfactory to Congress [or FOIA requesters], and the obvious cause is a lack of available resources . . . the equally obvious remedy is for Congress to supply the necessary resources and to designate their use for FOIA purposes.'"  "This is not meant to 'endorse or excuse . . . alleged noncompliance,' but in the Court's view, without a policy or practice to frame FMID's future risk of injury, exercising jurisdiction over this claim would turn the judicially-created FOIA policy-or-practice claim – intended to bypass mootness – into a mechanism to micromanage agency FOIA offices."
Court Decision Topic(s)
District Court opinions
Exemption 3
Exemption 6
Litigation Considerations, Policy-or-Practice Claims
Updated December 18, 2020