Animal Legal Defense Fund v. U.S. Dep't of Agric.

Summary

The Ninth Circuit held that the term "individual" in the Freedom of Information Act's expedited-processing provision refers to a human being and does not include an animal. The court affirmed summary judgment for the U.S. Department of Agriculture and held that the plaintiff's pattern-or-practice claim was not moot and was not barred by FOIA's jurisdiction-stripping provision. The court denied as moot the plaintiff's motion to take judicial notice.

Holdings

1. The action was not moot because ALDF alleged a pattern or practice of FOIA violations, personally experienced the challenged policy, and showed a sufficient likelihood of future harm.
2. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(iv) does not bar a pattern-or-practice action satisfying Hajro's three-part test.
3. As used in 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(v)(I), where no corresponding group or category is specified, "individual" means a human being and does not include an animal.
4. Neither FOIA's general pro-disclosure purpose, animal-protection statutes, nor the parallel use of "individual" in FOIA Exemption 7(F) supports including animals within the expedited-processing provision's term "individual."

Questions Presented

1. Whether ALDF's pattern-or-practice challenge to USDA's expedited-processing policy remained justiciable after USDA produced the requested records.
2. Whether FOIA's jurisdiction-stripping provision barred the district court from hearing ALDF's pattern-or-practice claim after the agency completed its response to a specific request.
3. Whether the term "individual" in 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(v)(I) includes an animal as well as a human being.

Disposition

affirmed