Case Detail
Case Title | Friends of Animals v. Bernhardt et al | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
District | District of Colorado | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
City | Denver | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Number | 1:2019cv01443 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Filed | 2019-05-21 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Closed | 2020-04-24 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Judge | Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Plaintiff | Friends of Animals | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Description | Friends of Animals submitted a FOIA request to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for records concerning the importation of African elephant skins and products from 2012 to the present. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request. The agency located 847 pages and withheld parts of 496 pages under Exemption 4 (confidential business information), Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy), and Exemption 7(C) (invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records). Friends of Animals filed an administrative appeal, but after hearing nothing further from the agency, Friends of Animals filed suit. Complaint issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation - Attorney's fees | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | David Bernhardt in his official capacity as the Secretary of the Interior | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service an agency of the United States | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Appeal | Tenth Circuit 20-1182 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Documents | Docket Complaint Opinion/Order [33] FOIA Project Annotation: A federal court in Colorado has ruled that U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service properly responded to two FOIA requests submitted by Friends of Animals pertaining to importation of African Elephant and Giraffe skins, hides, and products. The Office of Law Enforcement, which investigates wildlife crimes, regulates wildlife trade, and works to protect wildlife resources, uses Form 3-177 to collect information on species being transported, the names of importers and exporters, the quantity and monetary value of shipments, and relevant permit numbers. In response to Friends of Animals' requests, the agency provided 847 pages of responsive Form 3-177 records for the elephant request. It withheld records under Exemption 4 (confidential business information), Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy), and Exemption 7(C) (invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records). In response to the giraffe request, the agency told Friends of Animals that it would redact names of importers and exporters from its Excel spreadsheet responsive to the request under Exemption 6 and Exemption 7(C). Friends of Animals argued that the records on imports and exports were not commercial for purposes of Exemption 4. However, the court noted that "here, the withheld information pertains to the source and vendor involved in a commercial transaction with the submitter as well as the volume and value of goods the submitter was importing as part of its business. Release of such information could reasonably result in harm to the submitter's business." The court also agreed that the agency had provided sufficient assurances to submitters that their information would be treated confidentially. The court observed that "defendant's notice assures submitters that their information will not be given, sold, or transferred to third parties except as required by law. This is a direct assurance that their information is private. The fact that the information could be disclosed pursuant to FOIA is true of all information held by the government. FOIA's application to government information alone is not enough to defeat any assurances of privacy in information held by the government; otherwise, the statute's mere existence would preclude the application of Exemption 4 in any instance." Although the court found that FWS had not shown that it was a law enforcement agency, it agreed that the Office of Law Enforcement qualified, noting that "defendant has met its burden of demonstrating that the information it seeks to withhold from Plaintiff pursuant to Exemption 7 was compiled for 'law enforcement purposes.'" Finding that Friends of Animals had articulated no public interest in disclosure of the names of wildlife crime investigators, the court observed that "in this case, disclosing the names of individuals would not likely advance a significant public interest, and the Court finds, balancing the competing interests in privacy and disclosure, that the invasion of personal privacy from release could reasonably be expected to be unwarranted."
Issues: Exemption 7(C) - Invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records, Exemption 4 - Competitive harm | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
User-contributed Documents | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Docket Events (Hide) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|