Summary of a Recent
Judicial
Development in
Administrative Law
Motion for Discovery in FOIA Case Considered Only After
Government Moves for Summary Judgment
Walt McCarterNational AgLaw Center Research Associate
Summary of Decision
In Lion Raisins, Inc. v. United States Department of Agriculture, No. 1:08-CV-00358-OWW-SMS, 2009 WL 160283 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2009), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California held that a plaintiff's motion for discovery was premature because discovery generally occurs after the government makes its motion for summary judgment in FOIA cases.
Background
Lion Raisins, Inc. (Lion) brought a motion for discovery in connection with various requests it made under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, for certain USDA records. Id. at *1. Lion had submitted affidavits and its argument in an attempt to show bad faith on the part of the USDA in hopes of demonstrating that discovery should be allowed, to which the USDA responded that a decision as to discovery should be made only after it had filed its motion for summary judgment. Id. at *3.
Analysis and Holdings
The court stated that Lion's motion for discovery under Rule 26 was subject to the "meet and confer" requirements of Local Rule 37-251, with which Lion had not complied. Id. at *1. Lion offered no reason for its non-compliance, but it was allowed to present oral argument on its motion nonetheless. Id. After hearing from both parties, the court found that the motion for discovery was premature. Id. Although discovery is permissible in a FOIA case, the court explained that "discovery is limited because the underlying case revolves around the propriety of revealing certain documents. Accordingly, in these cases courts may allow the government to move for summary judgment before the plaintiff conducts discovery." Id. Limited discovery is appropriate when a plaintiff raises serious doubts as to the completeness and good faith of the agency's search for documents or asserted exemptions. See id. at *2. In this case, however, the USDA had not made its motion for summary judgment and had therefore not supplied affidavits or briefing related to its responses to the FOIA requests, claimed exemptions, searches conducted, or other substantive matters. Id. at *3. The court held that without the USDA's position and evidence on those matters, there was not enough information to conclusively determine whether or to what extent discovery should be permitted, and therefore denied Lion's motion for discovery. Id.
The case was decided on January 21, 2009.