Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00062/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00062-4/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

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LION RAISINS, INC., ) 

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF )

AGRICULTURE, )

 )

Defendant. )

)

) 

No. CV-F-05-0062 REC SMS 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT, GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND

DIRECTING CLERK TO ENTER

JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT. 

 

(Docs. 18, 23) 

On September 26, 2005, the Court heard Plaintiff’s and

Defendant’s cross motions for summary judgment. Upon due

consideration of the written and oral arguments of the parties

and the record herein, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion and

DENIES Plaintiff’s motion as set forth below.

I. Factual Background

This case concerns Freedom of Information Act requests by

Lion Raisins (“Lion”) that the United States Department of

Case 1:05-cv-00062-OWW -SMS Document 46 Filed 10/20/05 Page 1 of 21
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Agriculture (“USDA”) denied, citing ongoing administrative

proceedings against Lion. Lion and USDA have been involved in

administrative proceedings since 1998, when the Agricultural

Marketing Service (hereinafter referred to as “AMS”) initiated an

investigation of Lion. The proceedings stem from USDA’s

allegations that representatives of Lion forged signatures of

USDA inspectors or recorded false moisture readings on inspection

certificates. USDA alleges that Bruce Lion, an officer and

director of Lion Raisins, instituted a procedure for falsifying

or fabricating USDA certificates to conform to customer

specifications. The fabricated certificates, USDA alleges, were

then sent to foreign customers.

On January 12, 2001, USDA suspended Lion’s eligibility for

government contracts and filed an administrative complaint (I&G

Docket Number 01-0001) that sought to “debar” future inspections

of Lion’s facilities. As of August 10, 2005, ten weeks of

hearings had been held in that case, and USDA had finished

presenting its case in chief. More hearings are scheduled. Two

additional administrative complaints (I&G Docket Numbers 03-0001

and 04-0001) have issued against Lion. 

Lion is the largest independent handler of raisins produced

in California. It handles and packs raisins produced by outside

growers and by Lion and its affiliates. Lion is governed by the

Agricultural Marketing Act of 1937 (7 U.S.C. §§ 601-627) and a

“marketing order” promulgated thereunder that governs raisins

produced from grapes grown in California (7 C.F.R. §§ 989.1-

Case 1:05-cv-00062-OWW -SMS Document 46 Filed 10/20/05 Page 2 of 21
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

989.801). The marketing order calls for an inspection process

whereby a handler must have USDA inspect its products once when

they are received from the producer and again before they are

sold to the producer. 7 C.F.R. §§ 989.58-989.59. The AMS is

charged with the administration of the inspection regulations and

provides inspection and grading services to applicants. The

inspections entail USDA inspectors periodically taking samples

from handlers’ processing lines to assess the quality of the

raisins in various categories, such as weight, color, size, sugar

content, and moisture. 

The inspection process generates a variety of paperwork. A

USDA inspector completes a “Line Check Sheet” based on his or her

observations and assigns grades to the raisins. The inspector

then prepares a Certificate of Quality and Condition for Raisins

Worksheet (“Worksheet”) that serves as a draft for the official

Certificate of Quality and Condition (“Official Certificate”),

also known as form FV-146, and gives the Worksheet to an employee

of the packer. At Lion the Worksheet was given to a shipping

department employee. The employee’s task was to type the

Official Certificate based on the information on the Worksheet. 

The employee next returned the Official Certificate and Worksheet

to the USDA grader. If the grader reviewed the Official

Certificate and determined that it had been correctly prepared,

the grader would sign it and return only the original and up to

four carbon copies of the Official Certificate to Lion. USDA did

not return the Worksheets to Lion. From time to time, USDA

Case 1:05-cv-00062-OWW -SMS Document 46 Filed 10/20/05 Page 3 of 21
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

4

officials inspecting Lion’s raisins would void an Official

Certificate and have a new one typed up. USDA then provided a

copy of the new Official Certificate to Lion. USDA retained the

voided Official Certificate (“Voided Certificate”) and did not at

that time provide a copy to Lion. 

On May 13, 2004, Maralee Berling sent a letter to USDA

requesting under FOIA “any and all Void or Voided USDA

Certificates, also known as USDA form FV-146 prepared for Lion

Raisins, Inc., or Lion Enterprises, Inc.” for the period

“beginning January 1995 to December 2000.” Trykowski Decl. Ex.

A. USDA’s FOIA Officer Zipora D. Bullard refused Lion’s request

in a letter of June 23, 2004, on the grounds that the documents

were being withheld pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A) as

evidence in USDA’s ongoing investigation of Lion. Trykowski

Decl. Ex. B. Lion appealed that decision. Trykowski Decl. Ex.

C. By letter dated February 14, 2005, the AMS Acting

Administrator, Kenneth C. Clayton, responded to Lion’s appeal by

reversing Ms. Bullard’s initial denial and agreed to release the

requested documents. Trykowski Decl. Ex. D. On February 14,

2005, USDA produced 534 documents “representing the USDA

Certificates of Quality and Condition (form FV-146) which were

voided by USDA personnel at Lion Raisins, Inc. between August 1,

1995 and December 31, 2000.” Trykowski Decl. ¶ 12. Lion has not

disputed USDA’s contention that USDA has satisfied Lion’s

request.

In a letter dated May 13, 2004, Lion then requested, under

Case 1:05-cv-00062-OWW -SMS Document 46 Filed 10/20/05 Page 4 of 21
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

5

FOIA, any and all USDA Certificate of Quality and Condition for

Raisins Worksheets issued or prepared by USDA for product

inspected at Lion during the period of January 1995 to December

2000. Trykowski Decl. Ex. E. By letter dated June 23, 2004, Ms.

Bullard again responded to Lion’s request by withholding the

requested documents pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A). 

Trykowski Decl. Ex. F. In its letter dated July 12, 2004, Lion

again appealed. Trykowski Decl. Ex. G. By letter dated January

3, 2005, Mr. Clayton responded to Lion’s appeal by upholding Ms.

Bullard’s initial refusal to release the requested documents. 

Trykowski Decl. Ex. H at 1.

II. Procedural History

Lion filed the instant complaint in federal court on January

11, 2005. Lion alleges that FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552, requires USDA

to provide the Voided Certificates and Worksheets that it

requested for the period from January 1995 to December 2000. 

Lion seeks a declaratory judgment that USDA improperly refused to

provide the documents, an injunction that requires USDA to

produce the documents, and attorney fees and costs. 

USDA filed a motion for summary judgment on August 10, 2005. 

Lion filed a motion for summary judgment on August 11, 2005.

III. Discussion

A. Legal Standard

Summary judgment is proper when it is shown that there

exists “no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the

moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.

Case 1:05-cv-00062-OWW -SMS Document 46 Filed 10/20/05 Page 5 of 21
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

6

R. Civ. P. 56. A fact is “material” if it is relevant to an

element of a claim or a defense, the existence of which may

affect the outcome of the suit. T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac.

Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987)

(citing Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,

475 U.S. 574, 89 L. Ed. 2d 538, 106 S. Ct. 1348 (1986)). 

Materiality is determined by the substantive law governing a

claim or a defense. Id. The evidence and all inferences drawn

from it must be construed in the light most favorable to the

nonmoving party. Id. 

The initial burden in a motion for summary judgment is on

the moving party. The moving party satisfies this initial burden

by identifying the parts of the materials on file it believes

demonstrate an “absence of evidence to support the nonmoving

party’s case.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325, 91

L. Ed. 2d 265, 106 S. Ct. 2548 (1986). The burden then shifts to

the nonmoving party to defeat summary judgment. T.W. Elec., 809

F.2d at 630. Where a court decides cross motions for summary

judgment, neither party is entitled to summary judgment if a

genuine issue exists as to any material fact. United States v.

Fred A. Arnold, Inc., 573 F.2d 605, 606 (9th Cir. 1978)(citing

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)).

The nonmoving party “may not rely on the mere allegations in

the pleadings in order to preclude summary judgment,” but must

set forth by affidavit or other appropriate evidence “specific

facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial.” T.W. Elec.,

Case 1:05-cv-00062-OWW -SMS Document 46 Filed 10/20/05 Page 6 of 21
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

7

809 F.2d at 630 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)). The nonmoving

party may not simply state that it will discredit the moving

party’s evidence at trial; it must produce at least some

“significant probative evidence tending to support the

complaint.” Id. (citing First Nat’l Bank v. Cities Serv. Co.,

391 U.S. 253, 290, 20 L. Ed. 2d 569, 88 S. Ct. 1575 (1968)). 

A district court may grant summary judgment in FOIA cases

“solely on the basis of government affidavits describing the

documents sought.” Lion Raisins, Inc. v. USDA (Lion I), 354 F.3d

1072, 1092 (9th Cir. 2004). Despite the agency’s burden in such

cases, a district court can grant summary judgment in the

agency’s favor where accurate affidavits given in good faith

adequately state the grounds for nondisclosure:

The federal courts and federal judges are

ill-suited to assume the role of

super-administrator in FOIA cases. A court’s

primary role, therefore, is to review the

adequacy of the affidavits and other evidence

presented by the Government in support of its

position, utilizing an in camera examination

of the manual itself as an aid in determining

whether the Government’s affidavits are

accurate and made in good faith. If the

Government fairly describes the content of

the material withheld and adequately states

its grounds for nondisclosure, and if those

grounds are reasonable and consistent with

the applicable law, the district court should

uphold the Government’s position. The court

is entitled to accept the credibility of the

affidavits, so long as it has no reason to

question the good faith of the agency. See

Weissman v. CIA, [565 F.2d 692, 698 (D.C.

Cir. 1977)]. If, on the other hand, the

agency is unable adequately to support its

decision to withhold portions of the manual,

Case 1:05-cv-00062-OWW -SMS Document 46 Filed 10/20/05 Page 7 of 21
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Ordinarily, the government agency must compile a detailed 1

index that categorizes the documents withheld. See Lion I, 354

F.3d at 1082 (citing Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820, 823-23 (D.C.

Cir. 1973)). The court also has discretion to review the requested

documents in camera to determine whether the agency’s claims of

interference are warranted. See Lewis v. IRS, 823 F.2d 375, 378

(9th Cir. 1987). Neither party has requested that the Court

require an index of the withheld documents or review them in

camera, so the Court declines to do so. 

8

the court must release that material.1

Cox v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 576 F.2d 1302, 1312 (8th

Cir. 1978). “In evaluating a claim for exemption, a district

court must accord ‘substantial weight’ to [agency] affidavits,

provided the justifications for nondisclosure ‘are not

controverted by contrary evidence in the record or by evidence of

[agency] bad faith.’” Minier v. CIA, 88 F.3d 796, 800 (9th Cir.

1996).

B. USDA’s Motion for Summary Judgment

FOIA generally requires government agencies to fully

disclose to the public information they possess. 5 U.S.C.

§ 552(a)(3)(A); see Dep’t of the Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352,

360-61, 48 L. Ed. 2d 11, 96 S. Ct. 1592 (1976). FOIA evinces “‘a

general philosophy of full agency disclosure unless information 

is exempted under clearly delineated statutory language.’” Id. 

Courts narrowly construe the exclusive exceptions to compelled

disclosure set forth in 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). Rose, 425 U.S. at

361. The burden is on the agency to sustain its action. 5

U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B). 

Under the law enforcement exemption, 5 U.S.C.

Case 1:05-cv-00062-OWW -SMS Document 46 Filed 10/20/05 Page 8 of 21
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

9

§ 552(b)(7)(A), an agency need not disclose “records or

information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to

the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or

information (A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with

enforcement proceedings . . .” Therefore, exemption 7(A) does

not apply unless both of two elements are met: (1) the matter

must be “records or information compiled for law enforcement

purposes,” and (2) its release must “reasonably be expected to

interfere with enforcement proceedings.”

1. Voided Certificates

Lion’s complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief

requiring USDA to provide all Voided Certificates that USDA

retained concerning inspections from January 1995 to December

2000. USDA claims that it has responded to Lion’s request by

producing 543 documents representing Voided Certificates for the

period August 1, 1995, to December 31, 2000. Def.’s Statement of

Undisputed Material Facts (“UMF”) No. 12. Lion does not dispute

this contention. See Pl.’s Opp’n to UMF. The Court accordingly

accepts this contention as true. See Mendelsohn v. Capital

Underwriters, Inc., 490 F. Supp. 1069, 1081 (N.D. Cal. 1979)

(“[U]ndisputed statements contained in the moving party’s

affidavits are taken as true.” (citing Mut. Fund Investors, Inc.

v. Putnam Mgmt. Co., 553 F.2d 620, 624 (9th Cir. 1977))).

USDA has complied with Lion’s FOIA request for Voided

Certificates. Accordingly, summary judgment in favor of USDA as

to this issue is GRANTED.

Case 1:05-cv-00062-OWW -SMS Document 46 Filed 10/20/05 Page 9 of 21
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

10

2. Worksheets

a. Law Enforcement Purposes

USDA must first establish that the Worksheets are being

withheld for law enforcement purposes. This purpose can be shown

by affidavits that “establish a rational nexus between

enforcement of a federal law and the documents for which the

exemption is claimed.” Lewis v. IRS, 823 F.2d 375, 379 (9th Cir.

1987). Lion concedes for the purposes of its summary judgment

motion “that the Worksheets are records compiled for law

enforcement purposes.” Pl.’s Mot. at 7. This concession meets

USDA’s burden to show that the Worksheets satisfy the first

requirement of exemption 7(A).

b. Interference with Enforcement Proceedings

This motion turns on the issue of whether USDA has met its

burden to show that disclosure of the Worksheets can “reasonably

be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings.” The

Supreme Court has held that providing earlier access to the

government’s case can constitute interference with an enforcement

proceeding: 

In short, prehearing disclosure of witnesses’

statements would involve the kind of harm

that Congress believed would constitute an

“interference” with NLRB enforcement

proceedings: that of giving a party litigant

earlier and greater access to the Board’s

case than he would otherwise have. As the

lower courts have noted, even without

intimidation or harassment a suspected

violator with advance access to the Board’s

case could “‘construct defenses which would

permit violations to go unremedied.’”

Case 1:05-cv-00062-OWW -SMS Document 46 Filed 10/20/05 Page 10 of 21
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

11

NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 241-43, 57 L.

Ed. 2d 159, 98 S. Ct. 2311 (1978). The Court applied exemption

7(A) based on its “reluctance to override a long tradition of

agency discovery.” Id. at 239. The Court further noted that

“FOIA was not intended to function as a private discovery tool.” 

Id. at 242.

Lion contends, citing Miller v. USDA, 13 F.3d 260, 263 (8th

Cir. 1993), that USDA can only prevail if it introduces “specific

facts” that “show the distinct harm that could result from

disclosure.” Pl.’s Mot. at 3. Lion misreads Miller. Miller

makes no mention of “distinct harm” or “specific facts.” See

Miller, 13 F.3d at 263. In that case, the court merely held that

the agency was required to make a “more specific showing” than

the boilerplate, conclusory affidavits it had filed. Id. All

that is required of the agency is a “general showing that

disclosure of its investigatory records would interfere with its

enforcement proceedings.” Lewis, 823 F.2d at 380 (citing Robbins

Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. at 224-25). The Supreme Court, after

reviewing FOIA’s legislative history, refused to require a

detailed, particularized showing, concluding “that Congress did

not intend to prevent the federal courts from determining that,

with respect to particular kinds of enforcement proceedings,

disclosure of particular kinds of investigatory records while a

case is pending would generally ‘interfere with enforcement

proceedings.’” Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. at 236. The

Ninth Circuit requires that refusal to disclose shall not be

Case 1:05-cv-00062-OWW -SMS Document 46 Filed 10/20/05 Page 11 of 21
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

12

predicated on “speculative and farfetched” law enforcement

concerns. Lion I, 354 F.3d at 1085. 

USDA points out that USDA’s civil enforcement proceedings do

not allow Lion to conduct full discovery. Trykowski Decl. ¶ 20;

see 7 C.F.R. §§ 1.140-1.141. USDA contends that Lion is

attempting to circumvent the agency discovery rules with this

FOIA request. USDA further claims that Lion has altered

“[n]umerous USDA documents found in Lion’s shipping files.” 

Trykowski Decl. ¶ 22. USDA contends that Lion seeks the

Worksheets that USDA is withholding because

[t]he scope of the fraud committed by Lion is

on such a wide scale that Lion’s own

employees lack the ability to recognize

fraudulent documents in Lion’s own files. 

The only way Lion can possibly identify the

documents it falsified is to obtain every

document on file with the USDA that pertains

to inspections of raisins conducted at Lion

for the period of 1995 to 2000. (Trykowski

Decl., ¶22).

Def.’s Mot. at 7. 

On June 24, 2002, Lion introduced at the administrative

hearing a copy of a purported Official Certificate from its own

shipping files during its cross examination of a USDA grader. 

Trykowski Decl. ¶ 23. David Trykowski, Chief of Investigations

for the Compliance Office of the AMS, recognized that the

document had been falsified but was not yet part of the

government’s evidence in the case. Trykowski Decl. ¶ 23.

As a result, USDA subsequently amended its administrative

complaint to allege that Lion had committed additional

Case 1:05-cv-00062-OWW -SMS Document 46 Filed 10/20/05 Page 12 of 21
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

13

violations. Trykowski Decl. ¶ 23.

USDA further alleges that disclosing the Worksheets

would allow Lion to create exculpatory evidence. USDA points to

a its formal allegations that Lion has “long history of creating

documentary ‘evidence’ to support its position.” Trykowski Decl.

¶ 24. The Trykowski declaration indicates that “[t]he

administrative hearing record is replete with evidence supporting

those allegations.” Trykowski Decl. ¶ 24. Mr. Trykowski also

believes that Lion fabricated “minutes of board of directors’

meetings” attached to its reply brief in the first administrative

proceeding to support its case. Trykowski Decl. ¶ 25. Lion

could use the Worksheets, Mr. Trykowski states, “as templates for

the fabrication of ‘exculpatory documents.’” Trykowski Decl.

¶ 26.

Lion argues generally that USDA’s written responses to its

FOIA requests do not sufficiently specify the harm that could

result from disclosure. Lion errs to the extent that it urges

the Court to limit its decision about whether a FOIA exemption

applies to the reasons given in USDA’s initial denial letters. 

Lion cites no authority so limiting the Court’s inquiry. In

fact, courts may decide a motion for summary judgment on a FOIA

claim based on agency affidavits specifying why the documents

requested meet a FOIA exemption. Lion I, 354 F.3d at 1082. A

district court makes this determination de novo. Robbins Tire &

Rubber Co., 437 U.S. at 235. 

Lion argues that the Worksheets cannot reasonably be

Case 1:05-cv-00062-OWW -SMS Document 46 Filed 10/20/05 Page 13 of 21
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Lion further claims that if the Worksheets contain identical 2

information to the Line Check Sheets, then they must contain

exculpatory evidence or USDA would have released them already.

Pl.’s Mot. at 8. This claim is fallacious. Mr. Trykowski denies

14

expected to interfere with any enforcement proceeding because 1)

the Worksheets are identical to materials Lion already possesses,

2) there is no risk that Lion will use the Worksheets to

fabricate evidence, and 3) Lion is already familiar with USDA’s

litigation strategy.

Lion asserts that disclosure of the Worksheets could not

possibly interfere with the enforcement proceedings because Lion

already has access to all of the information that the Worksheets

contain in the form of other documents. In Lion I, the Ninth

Circuit held that the law enforcement exemption did not apply to

copies of Line Check Sheets that USDA withheld. 354 F.3d at

1085. The court held that USDA had no reason to retain the

original Line Check Sheets because they were “identical” to the

copies it left with Lion. Id. Copies of material that Lion

already possessed could not possibly “allow Lion premature access

to the evidence upon which it intends to rely at trial.” Id. 

Here, the Worksheets are not identical to the Official

Certificates or to any other document that Lion has possessed. 

USDA’s practice was to collect the Worksheets after it processed

the Official Certificates and not leave a copy of the Worksheets

with Lion. Trykowski Decl. ¶ 16. Lion claims that USDA has

conceded that the Worksheets are “‘draft’ USDA Certificates”

identical to the Line Check Sheets that Lion already has. Pl.’s 2

Case 1:05-cv-00062-OWW -SMS Document 46 Filed 10/20/05 Page 14 of 21
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

that any of the withheld materials are exculpatory. Trykowski

Decl. ¶¶ 15, 21-22. USDA could withhold this information for

various reasons, such as to prevent premature disclosure of its

case or to prevent Lion from learning which of Lion’s own documents

are fraudulent. In any event, the usefulness of the information

for Lion’s defense is irrelevant, so long as the law enforcement

exemption is met. FOIA is not a tool for second-guessing agency

discovery practice. See Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. at

239.

15

Mot. at 8. Though USDA has claimed that the Line Check Sheets

are required to be accurately transferred to the Worksheets, no

materials it has filed before the Court appear to concede that

the two documents are effectively copies of one another. Even

though the Line Check Sheets may generally contain similar

information to the Worksheets from which they were created, they

do not amount to two copies of the same document. In fact, both

parties acknowledge that the outcome of the administrative

proceedings may depend on a determination of how faithfully the

Line Check Sheets correspond to the Worksheets and to the

resulting Official Certificate. Trykowski Decl. ¶ 17; Pl.’s UMF

No. 13. Consequently, this case is distinguishable from Lion I

because it appears that Lion’s only means of obtaining copies of

the Worksheets before the end of the administrative proceedings

is this FOIA request.

In response to USDA’s claims about fabrication, Lion objects

that any attempt to alter the Worksheets would be futile because

USDA already possesses the entire universe of Worksheets prepared

for Lion. Lion also contends that the Worksheets that USDA

claims Lion fabricated may have resulted from negligent or

Case 1:05-cv-00062-OWW -SMS Document 46 Filed 10/20/05 Page 15 of 21
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

16

intentional acts of USDA inspectors. One USDA inspector,

Jennifer Brower, has acknowledged that during the inspection

process it was not uncommon that she “whited out” an incorrect

grade on a Worksheet and wrote in the correct grade, rather than

typing out a new Worksheet on a computer. McBrearty Decl. Ex. 6

at 3. Lion questions the trustworthiness of the Worksheets by

pointing out that USDA failed to sign all of the Worksheets USDA

introduced at the administrative hearing. Pl.’s UMF No. 15. 

Lion claims that the lack of a signature makes the Worksheets

“potentially fraudulent.” Pl.’s Mot. at 5. Lion argued at oral

argument that the Worksheets are necessary to counter USDA’s

assertions that an “absence of entry” in certain records is

evidence of Lion’s misconduct. Lion contends that the Worksheets

will show that the absences actually result from USDA’s willful

or negligent conduct. 

Lion’s assertions that it cannot be “reasonably expected”

that Lion will fraudulently alter the copies of the Worksheets or

use them as a template for fabrication if they are disclosed are

persuasive. USDA has only made conclusory secondhand averments

to this effect that derive from the yet unfinished administrative

hearings on the subject. See Trykowski Decl. ¶¶ 15-17, 22, 24. 

The Court agrees that it is unlikely that Lion will now try to

extricate itself from these accusations of fraudulent fabrication

by fabricating more documents directly under the nose of USDA. 

Thus, USDA has not shown that the likelihood of fabrication,

taken alone, makes it such that we can reasonably expect the

Case 1:05-cv-00062-OWW -SMS Document 46 Filed 10/20/05 Page 16 of 21
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

17

Worksheets to interfere with the administrative proceedings.

To rebut USDA’s claims that disclosing the Worksheets would

reveal its litigation strategy, Lion points out that the

Worksheets were prepared long before the administrative

proceedings began and so cannot reveal anything about USDA’s

strategy in later proceedings. USDA has completed its case in

chief in the first of three administrative actions, which means

that any litigation strategy has already been revealed, according

to Lion. Lion also asserts that future debarment proceedings

will be similar to the first. Pl.’s Mot. at 8. Lion argued for

the first time at oral argument that, based on its knowledge of

the Official Certificates, it already is aware of the contents of

the Worksheets.

Lion persuasively argues that it already knows a great deal

about USDA’s litigation strategy. USDA has already presented its

case in the first proceeding. Neither party has informed the

Court about the nature of the other pending administrative

hearings, except that the second concerns “additional violations

of the AMA and the inspection and certification regulations” and

the third addresses “further violations of the AMA and the

inspection and certification regulations.” Trykowski Decl. ¶ 14. 

Thus, for the purpose of deciding USDA’s motion we will view the

evidence in the light most favorable to Lion and presume that

USDA’s case in the forthcoming proceedings will be similar to the

first. See Matsushita, 475 U.S. 574.

Even if the upcoming proceedings are similar, however,

Case 1:05-cv-00062-OWW -SMS Document 46 Filed 10/20/05 Page 17 of 21
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

18

Lion’s greater access to the evidence against it may still

interfere with them. Lion is likely to be better able to present

its defense knowing what evidence USDA has available for rebuttal

and cross examination. USDA’s claim that Lion will be able to

present a more effective defense using the documents is

convincing. Lion’s introduction, on June 24, 2002, of a

falsified Official Certificate during cross examination lends

credence to USDA’s claim that, if Lion has fabricated documents,

it currently lacks information about its past fabrication. This

incident also belies Lion’s assertion that its knowledge of

Official Certificates provides all the information it needs to

determine what information other inspection-related documents

ought to contain. Disclosure of the Worksheets would provide the

“earlier and greater access” that constitutes an interference

with enforcement proceedings. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437

U.S. at 241; see also Mapother v. Dep’t of Justice, 3 F.3d 1533,

1542 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (holding that a document met exemption 7(A)

where the agency alleged that disclosure “‘would allow possible

fabrication of alibis and/or other exculpatory evidence, contact

with potential witnesses, and would allow the identification of

any weaknesses in the government’s evidence that may be unfairly

exploited by Waldheim.’”)

Lion has not given the Court a satisfactory basis to

disregard Mr. Trykowski’s statement about the falsified Official

Certificate it introduced. In its briefs, Lion made boilerplate

objections to other portions of Mr. Trykowski’s affidavit on the

Case 1:05-cv-00062-OWW -SMS Document 46 Filed 10/20/05 Page 18 of 21
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 Mr. Trykowski has worked since 1995 in an investigative 3

capacity with AMS and has over thirty years total investigative

experience. Trykowski Decl. ¶ 1.

19

grounds that they were unreliable expert opinion under Federal

Rule of Evidence 702. See, e.g., Pl.’s Objs. to Evidence No. 1. 

In fact, Lion applies that objection to each one of its

evidentiary objections except for the objection that applies to

the introduction of the fabricated Official Certificate, which it

objects to only on relevance grounds. Pl.’s Objs. to Evidence

No. 7. Lion objected for the first time at oral argument that

Mr. Trykowski’s affidavit is conclusory and lacks a factual

basis. 

Lion is correct that Mr. Trykowski gives no specific facts

underlying his opinion that the Official Certificate had been

fabricated. See Trykowski Decl. ¶ 23. Expert opinions need not,

however, disclose the factual foundation on which they are based. 

See Mid-State Fertilizer Co. v. Exch. Nat'l Bank, 877 F.2d 1333,

1339 (7th Cir. 1989) (“Rule 705 of the Federal Rules of Evidence

allows experts to present naked opinions.”). Lion provides no

reason to doubt Mr. Trykowski’s opinion about the document’s

authenticity. Nor did Lion give any reason to doubt Mr.

Trykowski’s expertise as an investigator or his ability to

identify falsified documents.3

In any event, Lion does not dispute Mr. Trykowski’s opinion

that the document it introduced at the proceedings was fabricated

and makes no effort to explain its origin. Consequently, the

Case 1:05-cv-00062-OWW -SMS Document 46 Filed 10/20/05 Page 19 of 21
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

20

Court will deem that statement admitted. See Mendelsohn, 490 F.

Supp. at 1081.

 Lion’s introduction of a falsified document, the origin of

which it cannot explain, combined with USDA’s ongoing

administrative proceedings, establishes that in this kind of

enforcement proceeding, this kind of evidence would “generally

‘interfere with enforcement proceedings.’” See Robbins Tire &

Rubber Co., 437 U.S. at 236. While USDA has not proven as a

matter of law that Lion has fabricated or even is likely to

fabricate any documents if the Worksheets are disclosed, it need

not make any such a showing. USDA need not prove its entire case

against Lion in order to withhold the Worksheets. All it must do

is show the existence of a law enforcement proceeding and that

the withheld documents “could reasonably be expected to

interfere” with that proceeding. Lion I, 354 F.3d at 1072. 

USDA’s concern about expected interference with enforcement

is not merely “a speculative and farfetched concern.” See Lion

I, 354 F.3d at 1085. It is uncontroverted that Lion introduced a

fabricated Official Certificate that triggered additional

administrative complaints. Lion has failed to advance an

innocent explanation for the introduction of the document. Lion

has also failed respond to USDA’s concerns that disclosing the

Worksheets would help Lion to discover which of its documents, if

any, are falsified. The Worksheets will undoubtedly help Lion

determine which of its own documents differ from those held by

USDA. By comparing its files to the withheld Worksheets, Lion

Case 1:05-cv-00062-OWW -SMS Document 46 Filed 10/20/05 Page 20 of 21
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

21

could likely better structure its defense to avoid liability that

would inevitably stem from future accidental disclosure of

falsified documents.

The undisputed material facts and the USDA’s affidavits meet

the government’s burden to show that the law enforcement

exemption is met. The disclosure of the Worksheets can

“reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement

proceedings.” Accordingly, summary judgment in favor of USDA as

to this issue is GRANTED.

C. Lion’s Motion for Summary Judgment

For the reasons stated above, Lion’s motion for summary

judgment is DENIED.

ACCORDINGLY: 

1. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is hereby

GRANTED and Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is hereby

DENIED.

2. JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT TO BE GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 19, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

810ha4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00062-OWW -SMS Document 46 Filed 10/20/05 Page 21 of 21