Case Detail

FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Timothy Kelly has ruled that the Department of Agriculture properly withheld identifying information in response to seven FOIA requests from Telematch, Inc. (d/k/a/ Farm Marked ID (FMID), which collects, maintains, and analyzes agricultural data from various sources, including the federal government, under Exemption 3 (other statues) and Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy). The opinion is the latest example of a continued narrowing of the ability to obtain data that could disclose identifying information about family farms, a distinction that is still unsettled as to the coverage of Exemption 6. However, in recent years, agencies have had access to an Exemption 3 statute specifically designed to broadly protect much of this information and allow agencies like the Farm Service Agency, the agency that received and processed FMID's requests, to withhold geographical data that could reveal the size of such farms. FMID's requests focused on Farm Numbers, Tract Numbers, and Customer Numbers. Farmer and Tract Numbers are assigned to land enrolled in USDA programs and are used to identify, for instance, the number of acres planted with a particular crop, or the location of conservation practices or geographical features.Customer Numbers are unique identifiers USDA assigns to individuals or entities in USDA databases. Customer Numbers are used to identify program participants and to help provide and administer farm loans, crop insurance, and disaster assistance compensation. Customer Numbers, like Farm and Tract Numbers, can be used to connect other USDA data. FMID's seven requests focused on a variety of data, all of which included Farm, Tract and Customer Numbers. The Farm Service Agency responded to all the requests but redacted data that identified Farm, Tract, and Customer Numbers under Exemption 6 and Exemption 3, citing 7 U.S.C. § 8791(b)(2) of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, which protects "(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" and "(B) geospatial information otherwise maintained by the Secretary about agricultural land or operations." Kelly agreed that the FCEA provision qualified as an Exemption 3 statue and that, further, the Farm and Tract Number data withheld by the agency fell within the provision prohibiting disclosure of geospatial data. He explained that "applying 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. FMID argues that, because the numbers are 'simply alpha-numerical codes that the USDA creates and assigns,' they are not geospatial information. But any system of identifying specific geographic locations â€" including, for example, GPS coordinates â€" must ultimately be designed and implemented by someone." Kelly then found that the Customer Number data was protected by Exemption 6. He began by noting that "there is no dispute that Customer Numbers apply to individuals or entities that have a record in a USDA database. 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." He indicated that "because tying Customer Numbers to these public records can reveal the above 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." He observed that "true, the Customer Numbers by themselves disclose nothing about an individual farmer to the public, including the farmer's identity. 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. For this reason, Custom Numbers implicate a privacy interest under Exemption 6." FMID argued that disclosure was in the public interest because the data could be used to determine whether USDA was overpaying program participants, or to help root out fraud. However, Kelly rejected those claims. He first noted that "the Court has already held that Farm and Tract Numbers are excepted from disclosure under Exemption 3 because they are geospatial information. FMID 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." He pointed out that "there is no evidence in the record to support FMID'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." Rejecting FMID's public interest arguments, Kelly noted that "it is possible that Customer Numbers could benefit the public by revealing information about program participants combined with already publicly available information. FMID, however, makes no argument that such retroactive matching would serve the public interest. And when analyzing an agency's invocation of Exemption 6, a court 'need not linger over the balance; something, even a modest privacy interest, outweighs nothing every time.'" FMID had also alleged that FSA had a policy or practice of failing to respond to FOIA requests, citing the recent D.C. Circuit decision in Judicial Watch v. Dept of Homeland Security, 89 F.3d 770 (D.C. Cir. 2018), in which the D.C. Circuit found that the Secret Service consistently ignored the timelines for responding to Judicial Watch's requests, forcing Judicial Watch to file suit. Instead, Kelly noted that "USDA has not engaged in similar conduct here. Unlike the Secret Service in Judicial Watch, USDA responded to FMID's requests before it filed suit, as opposed to waiting until afterward. And there is no indication that USDA is using the 'filing of a lawsuit as an organizing tool for setting its response priorities.' Indeed, USDA's organizing principle in processing FOIA requests and appeals is to do so on a 'first-in, first out basis.'" Kelly also found FMID's policy or practice claim fell short because he had found the agency's exemption claims in the seven FOIA requests at issue were proper. He pointed out that "thus, they cannot be the basis for any purported future injury."
Issues: Exemption 3 - Statutory prohibition of disclosure, Exemption 6 - Invasion of privacy

Date Filed	Doc #	Docket Text
2019-08-06	1	COMPLAINT against DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0090-6305025) filed by Telematch, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Ramana, Anand) (Attachment 1 replaced on 8/15/2019) (znmw). (Entered: 08/06/2019)
2019-08-07	2	LCvR 26.1 CERTIFICATE OF DISCLOSURE of Corporate Affiliations and Financial Interests by Telematch, Inc. (Ramana, Anand) (Entered: 08/07/2019)
2019-08-13	3	ERRATA by TELEMATCH, INC. 1 Complaint filed by TELEMATCH, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Summons, # 2 Summons, # 3 Summons)(Ramana, Anand) (Entered: 08/13/2019)
2019-08-13		Case Assigned to Judge Timothy J. Kelly. (zeg) (Entered: 08/13/2019)
2019-08-13	4	SUMMONS (3) Issued Electronically as to DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (Attachment: # 1 Notice and Consent)(zeg) (Entered: 08/13/2019)
2019-08-20	5	NOTICE of Appearance by Johnny Hillary Walker, III on behalf of DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (Walker, Johnny) (Entered: 08/20/2019)
2019-09-10	6	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer by DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Walker, Johnny) (Entered: 09/10/2019)
2019-09-12		MINUTE ORDER granting, for good cause shown, Defendant's 6 Consent Motion for Extension of Time. It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant shall respond to Plaintiff's complaint by October 7, 2019. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 9/12/2019. (lctjk3) (Entered: 09/12/2019)
2019-10-07	7	ANSWER to Complaint by DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.(Walker, Johnny) (Entered: 10/07/2019)
2019-10-08		MINUTE ORDER: Before the Court in this FOIA case are a complaint and an answer. It is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall meet, confer, and file a joint proposed schedule for briefing or disclosure by November 4, 2019. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 10/8/2019. (lctjk3) (Entered: 10/08/2019)
2019-11-04	8	Joint Proposed Briefing Schedule by TELEMATCH, INC. (Ramana, Anand); Modified event on 11/6/2019 (ztth). (Entered: 11/04/2019)
2019-11-05		MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of the parties' 8 Joint Proposed Briefing Schedule, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file its Motion for Summary Judgment by December 20, 2019; Defendant shall file its Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment by January 21, 2020; Plaintiff shall file its Reply in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment on February 11, 2020; and Defendant shall file its Reply in Support of its Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment by March 3, 2020. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 11/5/2019. (lctjk3) (Entered: 11/05/2019)
2019-12-20	9	MOTION for Summary Judgment by TELEMATCH, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Statement of Facts, # 3 Declaration of Damon Horst with Exhs. 1-25, # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(Ramana, Anand) (Entered: 12/20/2019)
2020-01-17	10	MOTION for Extension of Time to File an Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment by DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Walker, Johnny) (Entered: 01/17/2020)
2020-01-17		MINUTE ORDER treating as opposed and granting, for good cause shown, Defendant's 10 Motion for Extension of Time. It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant shall file its Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment by February 11, 2020; Plaintiff shall file its Reply in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment by March 3, 2020; and Defendant shall file its Reply in Support of its Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment by March 24, 2020. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 1/17/2020. (lctjk3) (Entered: 01/17/2020)
2020-01-17		Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant Opposition To Plaintiff's Motion For Summary Judgment And Cross-Motion For Summary Judgment due by 2/11/2020. Plaintiff Reply In Support Of Its Motion For Summary Judgment And Opposition To Defendant's Cross-Motion For Summary Judgment due by 3/3/2020. Defendant Reply In Support Of Its Cross-Motion For Summary Judgment due by 3/24/2020. (mac) (Entered: 01/17/2020)
2020-02-11	11	Unopposed MOTION to Modify by DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Walker, Johnny) (Entered: 02/11/2020)
2020-02-11		MINUTE ORDER granting, for good cause shown, Defendant's 11 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time. It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant shall file its Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment by February 14, 2020; Plaintiff shall file its Reply in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment by March 6, 2020; and Defendant shall file its Reply in Support of its Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment by March 24, 2020. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 2/11/2020. (lctjk3) (Entered: 02/11/2020)
2020-02-13	12	ENTER IN ERROR.....Joint STATUS REPORT by DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. (Walker, Johnny); Modified on 2/13/2020 (ztth). (Entered: 02/13/2020)
2020-02-13		NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: re 12 Status Report was entered in error. Said pleading was refiled by counsel in the correct case. (ztth) (Entered: 02/13/2020)
2020-02-14	13	MOTION for Summary Judgment by DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Statement of Material Facts, # 3 Declaration of Philip Buchan (with exhibits), # 4 2d Declaration of Philip Buchan, # 5 Exhibit A, # 6 Text of Proposed Order)(Walker, Johnny) (Entered: 02/14/2020)
2020-02-14	14	Memorandum in opposition to re 9 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Genuine Issues, # 2 Declaration of Philip Buchan (with exhibits), # 3 2d Declaration of Philip Buchan, # 4 Exhibit A)(Walker, Johnny) (Entered: 02/14/2020)
2020-03-06	15	REPLY to opposition to motion re 9 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by TELEMATCH, INC.. (Ramana, Anand) (Entered: 03/06/2020)
2020-03-06	16	Memorandum in opposition to re 13 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by TELEMATCH, INC.. (Ramana, Anand) (Entered: 03/06/2020)
2020-03-23	17	MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 13 MOTION for Summary Judgment by DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Walker, Johnny) (Entered: 03/23/2020)
2020-03-23	18	Memorandum in opposition to re 17 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 13 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by TELEMATCH, INC.. (Ramana, Anand) (Entered: 03/23/2020)
2020-03-24		MINUTE ORDER granting, for good cause shown, Defendant's 17 Motion for Extension of Time. Despite Plaintiff's attempt to argue otherwise, it is apparent that the disruptions caused by the coronavirus pandemic constitute, in this case, good cause for the requested short extension. It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant shall file its reply in support of its cross-motion for summary judgment by April 3, 2020. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 3/24/2020. (lctjk3) (Entered: 03/24/2020)
2020-04-03	19	MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 13 MOTION for Summary Judgment by DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Walker, Johnny) (Entered: 04/03/2020)
2020-04-03		MINUTE ORDER treating as opposed and granting, for good cause shown, Defendant's 19 Motion for Extension of Time. It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant shall file its reply in support of its cross-motion for summary judgment by April 8, 2020. The Court does not anticipate granting any further extensions in this matter absent a showing of extraordinary circumstances. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 4/3/2020. (lctjk3) (lcjb) (Entered: 04/03/2020)
2020-04-08	20	REPLY to opposition to motion re 13 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. (Attachments: # 1 Supplemental Declaration of Philip Buchan)(Walker, Johnny) (Entered: 04/08/2020)
2020-11-27	21	ORDER denying Plaintiff's 9 Motion for Summary Judgment, granting in part Defendant's 13 Motion for Summary Judgment, and dismissing the remaining claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 11/27/2020. (lctjk3) (Entered: 11/27/2020)
2020-11-27	22	MEMORANDUM OPINION in support of 21 ORDER denying Plaintiff's 9 Motion for Summary Judgment, granting in part Defendant's 13 Motion for Summary Judgment, and dismissing the remaining claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 11/27/2020. (lctjk3) (Main Document 22 replaced with corrected Memorandum Opinion on 11/30/2020) (zkh). (Entered: 11/27/2020)
2020-12-18	23	NOTICE OF APPEAL TO DC CIRCUIT COURT as to 21 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,,, 22 Memorandum & Opinion, by TELEMATCH, INC.. Filing fee $ 505, receipt number ADCDC-7979448. Fee Status: Fee Paid. Parties have been notified. (Ramana, Anand) (Entered: 12/18/2020)
2020-12-21	24	Transmission of the Notice of Appeal, Order Appealed (Memorandum Opinion), and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals fee was paid this date re 23 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court. (ztth) (Entered: 12/21/2020)
Hide Docket Events