Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05064/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05064-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 895
Nature of Suit: Freedom of Information Act of 1974
Cause of Action: 05:552 Freedom of Information Act

---

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LION RAISINS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

AGRICULTURE,

Defendant.

Case No. CV F-02-5064 JKS

O R D E R

Lion Raisins, Inc. (“Lion”) sought materials from the United States Deptartment of

Agriculture (“USDA”) under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). The Court denied the

requests, Docket No. 27, and Lion appealed. On appeal the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and

reversed in part. See Lion Raisins, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Agric., 354 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2004). The

Ninth Circuit remanded a single issue to this Court for further proceedings, namely whether the

USDA may shield two investigatory reports termed by the parties the Agricultural Marketing

Services Report (“AMS”) and the Office of Inspector General Report (“OIG”) under the law

enforcement exception to the FOIA. See 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(4), (b)(7)(A); Lion Raisins, 354 F.3d at

1084–85. The Appellate court indicates that this court’s task will be simple: “Because Lion

requested specific documents, and the USDA identified the exemptions under which it withheld

each document, the USDA need only explain, publicly and in detail, how releasing each of the 

withheld documents would interfere with the government’s ongoing criminal investigation.” Id. at

1084. The Ninth Circuit directed this Court’s attention to Lewis v. I.R.S., 823 F.2d 375, 378–79 (9th

Cir. 1987), to illustrate the “public” showing which the USDA must make in order to shield the

documents. Id. at 1084 n. 13. The government has now made its showing, turning over redacted

copies of the AMS and OIG reports and explaining the redactions in language apparently borrowed

from Lewis. Lion challenges the quality of the showing and the good faith of the United States

Case 1:02-cv-05064-JKS-DLB Document 68 Filed 08/04/05 Page 1 of 2
ORDER 

K:\_Docketing\Orders\Prisoner\3-4\02cv5064.o.0803.pdf.wpd 2

Attorney’s Office, which has undertaken, belatedly the Ninth Circuit might conclude, the defense of

this matter. The Court has reviewed the record de novo. Had the matter come to the Court in this

form five or so years ago it would have found Ninth Circuit case law satisfied. It is not five years

ago, however, and the parties have been litigating in both the courts and administrative agencies

during the intervening time. The reports are quite old. Thus there is something to Lion’s argument

that the government’s delay in acting suggests that there is no ongoing criminal investigation and

that the government’s reluctance to turn over unredacted copies of the reports is simply to aid its

position in the ongoing administrative proceedings which have progressed beyond the point that the

government could shield the documents as part of a civil or administrative investigation. While the

law enforcement exception might shield civil as well as criminal investigations, the Ninth Circuit’s

remand directs the government to justify failure to release the documents by reference to the oft

mentioned criminal investigation, and the status of the administrative proceedings would appear to

justify considering only criminal investigations. Rather than play ping pong with the Ninth Circuit

over this case, the Court will accept Lion’s suggestion and direct the government to provide

unredacted copies of the two reports together with a detailed affidavit from someone responsible for

the “criminal investigation” explaining how disclosure of the redacted materials would hinder that

investigation. The government shall submit the materials in camera on or before Monday,

September 12, 2005. If the government has in fact abandoned any intent to proceed criminally

against Lion it should be forthright and disclose that fact. A decision on the pending cross-motions

for summary judgment will be entered shortly after the court reviews the materials submitted in

camera.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated at Anchorage, Alaska, this 3 day of August 2005.

/s/ James K. Singleton

JAMES K. SINGLETON, JR. 

United States District Judge 

Case 1:02-cv-05064-JKS-DLB Document 68 Filed 08/04/05 Page 2 of 2