ALDF v. FDA
FILED PER CURIAM OPINION (SUSAN P. GRABER, KIM MCLANE WARDLAW and MARY H. MURGUIA) REVERSED AND REMANDED. FILED AND ENTERED JUDGMENT. 
Case: 13-17131, 09/30/2016, ID: 10143401, DktEntry: 76-1, Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND,
U.S. FOOD & DRUG
On Remand from the En Banc Court
Filed September 30, 2016
Before: Susan P. Graber, Kim McLane Wardlaw,
and Mary H. Murguia, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam Opinion
Case: 13-17131, 09/30/2016, ID: 10143401, DktEntry: 76-1, Page 2 of 3
ALDF V. USFDA
Freedom of Information Act
On remand from the en banc court, the panel reviewed de
novo the district court’s summary judgment in a Freedom of
Information Act case, concluded that there was a genuine
issue of material fact, and reversed and remanded to the
district court for further proceedings.
Monte M.F. Cooper, Derek F. Knerr, and Scott Lindlaw,
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Menlo Park, California,
Lindsey Powell and Michael S. Raab, Attorneys, Appellate
Staff, Civil Division, Department of Justice, Washington,
D.C.; for Defendant-Appellee.
Caitlin Zittkowski and Cristina R. Stella, San Francisco,
California, as and for Amicus Curiae Center for Food Safety.
This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has
been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
Case: 13-17131, 09/30/2016, ID: 10143401, DktEntry: 76-1, Page 3 of 3
ALDF V. USFDA
In Animal Legal Defense Fund v. FDA, No. 13-17131,
2016 WL 4578362 (9th Cir. Sept. 2, 2016) (en banc) (per
curiam), the en banc court overruled our earlier precedents on
the applicable standard of review in Freedom of Information
Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, cases decided on summary
judgment. The court held that the usual summary judgment
standard applies, so we must review the district court’s
decision de novo. Accordingly, on summary judgment, “if
there are genuine issues of material fact in a FOIA case, the
district court should proceed to a bench trial or adversary
hearing.” Animal Legal Def. Fund, 2016 WL 4578362, at *2.
As we noted in our earlier opinion, Animal Legal Defense
Fund v. FDA, 819 F.3d 1102, 1108–09 (9th Cir. 2016), the
parties submitted competing declarations concerning the
potential competitive effect of releasing egg-production
information. In a per curiam concurrence, we also observed
that, “if ordinary principles applied, summary judgment
would not be appropriate because the record contains a
disputed issue of material fact.” Id. at 1112. Following the
en banc court’s decision, those ordinary principles now
control this case. Applying the usual summary judgment
standard, we conclude that there is a genuine issue of material
fact in this case and, therefore, we must reverse and remand
to the district court for further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?