Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Animal Identification

Court Dismisses FOIA and Privacy Act Claims Regarding Discovery
of National Animal ID System Documents

Walt McCarter
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Zanoni v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 605 F. Supp. 2d 230, 2009 WL 840753 (D.D.C. 2009), the United Stated District Court for the District of Columbia held that a plaintiff lacked standing to bring a claim under the Privacy Act, because she was not the subject of the information she sought to discover and had therefore not suffered "injury in fact," and further held that Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Exemption (3) applied to bar the plaintiff's request for production under FOIA.

Background

The plaintiff, a journalist who wanted to write a story on the National Premises Information Repository (NPIR), sought to enjoin the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) from converting the NPIR and the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) to a Privacy Act system, and sought to compel the USDA to comply with her FOIA request concerning the two databases. Id. at *1.

Arguments

The USDA argued that the plaintiff was not an "individual" eligible to bring suit under the Privacy Act because she had not suffered the requisite "injury in fact," and that FOIA Exemption (3) applied to bar her request for production. Id. at *3-4.

The plaintiff argued that the term "individual" under the Privacy Act referred to "any citizen," and that FOIA Exemption (3) did not apply. Id.

Analysis and Holdings

Privacy Act claim
Section 552a(g)(1)(D) of the Privacy Act provides in part, "An individual may bring a civil action against an agency that has failed to comply with the Privacy Act in a way having an adverse effect on the individual." Id. at *3. However, the court held that the plaintiff was not an "individual" under the Privacy Act because she was not the subject of the information being withheld. Id. at *4.

FOIA request
The USDA withheld production of certain documents pursuant to FOIA Exemption (3), 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3), which provides that matters are exempt from disclosure when "a statute requires that . . . matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue . . . or establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld." Id. at *4. After examining the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act (FCEA), which provides that "any officer or employee of the Department of Agriculture . . . shall not disclose . . . information provided by an agricultural producer or owner of agricultural land concerning the agricultural operation, farming or conservation practices, or the land itself," the court concluded that FCEA "satisfie[d] both the conditions necessary for FOIA Exemption (3) status." Id. at *5. The court therefore denied the plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief and motion to compel production of documents. Id. at *7.

The case was decided on March 31, 2009.