Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05064/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05064-4/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 indicated that this Court’s task would 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 using language apparently

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

Case 1:02-cv-05064-JKS-DLB Document 71 Filed 09/22/05 Page 1 of 3
ORDER 

C:\WIND OW S\Temp\notes4BF954\~0245019.wpd 2

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

defense of this matter. 

The Court reviewed the record de novo. The age of the case and the absence of a decision

by the United States whether or not to prosecute strengthened Lion’s argument that the

government’s delay in acting suggested that there is no ongoing criminal investigation. The concern

was that the government was reluctant to turn over unredacted copies of the reports in an effort to

aid its position in the ongoing administrative proceedings, which have progressed beyond the point

where 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. The Court therefore accepted Lion’s

suggestion and directed 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. Docket No. 68. The

government was directed to submit the materials in camera on or before Monday, September 12,

2005. The order provided that if the government has in fact abandoned any intent to proceed

criminally against Lion it should be forthright and disclose that fact. The government has timely

complied with the order and has submitted copies of the original unredacted AMS and OIG. See

Docket Nos. 69; 70. Having reviewed the expanded record, the Court concludes that the

government has satisfied the mandate of the Ninth Circuit and justified withholding the redacted

information. The government has established that reasonable men and women could not differ that

disclosure of the withheld information could jeopardize an ongoing criminal investigation. The

Court is satisfied that the criminal investigation is ongoing and that Lion recognizes that fact, as it

appears that Lion is currently conducting settlement negotiations with the government regarding the

criminal matter, and has stipulated to extend the criminal statute of limitations until December of

2005 to aid those negotiations and delay any decision to prosecute. The government is therfore

entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 

Case 1:02-cv-05064-JKS-DLB Document 71 Filed 09/22/05 Page 2 of 3
ORDER 

C:\WIND OW S\Temp\notes4BF954\~0245019.wpd 3

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

Judge Coyle’s order at Docket No. 27 is reinstated. Plaintiff’s renewed motion for summary

judgment at Docket No. 56 is DENIED. Defendant’s counter motion for summary judgment at

Docket No. 59 is GRANTED. 

Dated at Anchorage, Alaska, this 22 day of September 2005.

/s/ James Singleton

JAMES K. SINGLETON, JR. 

United States District Judge 

Case 1:02-cv-05064-JKS-DLB Document 71 Filed 09/22/05 Page 3 of 3