Argus Leader Media v. U.S. Dep't of Agric.
| Decision Date | 01 April 2020 |
| Docket Number | 4:11-CV-04121-KES |
| Parties | ARGUS LEADER MEDIA, d/b/a Argus Leader, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Defendant, FOOD MARKETING INSTITUTE, Intervenor Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Dakota |
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL AND DENYING MOTION TO DEFER ACTION ON AWARD OF ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS
Plaintiff, Argus Leader Media, d/b/a Argus Leader, moves for a new trial and leave to amend pleadings and file new motions. Docket 215. Intervenor defendant, Food Marketing Institute (FMI), and trial defendant, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), oppose the motion. Dockets 222, 224. Argus also moves for an order deferring any action on the prior awards of attorney fees, or alternatively, an order upholding those awards. Docket 213. FMI and the USDA oppose the motion. Dockets 222, 224. For the reasons that follow, the court denies the motion for a new trial and the motion on attorney fees.
BACKGROUND
A detailed recitation of the facts can be found in this court's Memorandum Opinion and Order (Docket 127) and the United States Supreme Court's opinion (Food Mktg. Inst. v. Argus Leader Media, 139 S. Ct. 2356, 2361-62 (2019)).
The case began when Argus brought a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) suit against the USDA. Docket 1. Argus sought data on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as the Food Stamp Program. Docket 127 at 1-2. The USDA opposed the release of the data based on FOIA Exemption 4. Id. at 1, 2. Exemption 4 prevents the disclosure of "trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential[.]" 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4).
After denying summary judgment (Docket 80), the court held a two-day bench trial. Docket 111. At trial, the sole issue was whether all the elements of Exemption 4 had been met. Docket 99. Witnesses for the USDA testified that retailers kept their store-level SNAP data confidential and that disclosure would threaten stores' competitive positions. Food Mktg. Inst., 139 S. Ct. at 2361; Docket 127 at 3-5. Argus did not call any fact witnesses and did not dispute that retailers customarily kept the data private or that it had any competitive significance. Food Mktg. Inst., 139 S. Ct. at 2361; see Docket 127 at 5. Instead, Argus took the position that any competitive harm associated with the disclosure would not be substantial. Food Mktg. Inst., 139 S. Ct. at 2361; see Docket 127 at 5.
In applying the "competitive harm test," this court held that the USDA failed to meet its burden to show that Argus's FOIA request fell within Exemption 4 because the USDA did not prove that the requested data was confidential. Docket 127 at 14. The USDA failed to show that the release of the requested information would cause substantial competitive harm if it was disclosed. Id. The court entered judgment in favor of Argus. Docket 128. Two weeks after the court entered judgment in favor of Argus, on December 14, 2016, Argus filed a motion for attorney fees under 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(E). Docket 129. The USDA opposed the motion. Docket 169.
The USDA did not appeal the court's judgment. On January 27, 2017, FMI, a trade association that represents grocery retailers, filed an emergency motion to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a). Docket 138. The court granted the motion to intervene, and on February 14, 2017, FMI filed its own appeal. Dockets 143, 157. During this time, the USDA informed the court that it would not disclose the retailer's store-level SNAP data pending appeal. Food Mktg. Inst., 139 S. Ct. at 2362.
On August 3, 2017, this court granted Argus's motion for attorney fees. Docket 193. This court stated that the attorney fees, in the amount of $68,422.67, would be due and owed if the underlying order on the FOIA matter was affirmed by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Id. at 10. On August 17, 2017, Argus moved for an order amending or supplementing the previous order awarding attorney fees. Docket 194. Argus sought to add $2,900 in attorneyfees for the fees incurred in filing the motion for attorney fees. Id. The court granted the motion. Docket 196.
On appeal at the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, FMI argued that the Court of Appeals should apply the ordinary meaning of "confidential" instead of the "substantial competitive harm" test. Food Mktg. Inst., 139 S. Ct. at 2362. On May 8, 2018, the Court of Appeals rejected this argument and affirmed the district court's holding. See Argus Leader Media v. USDA, 889 F.3d 914 (8th Cir. 2018).
FMI filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court on October 11, 2018. Docket 205. The United States Supreme Court granted FMI's petition for certiorari. Food Mktg. Inst. v. Argus Leader Media, 139 S. Ct. 915 (2019); Docket 207. The United States Supreme Court found that the information was "confidential" under Exemption 4. Food Mktg. Inst., 139 S. Ct. at 2366. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Eighth Circuit and remanded the case "for further proceedings consistent with [its] opinion." Id.
A motion for new trial is governed by Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 59 states that "[t]he court may, on motion, grant a new trial on all or some of the issues . . . after a nonjury trial, for any reason for which a rehearing has heretofore been granted in a suit in equity in federal court." Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a)(1)(B). "A new trial is appropriate when the first trial, through averdict against the weight of the evidence, an excessive damage award, or legal errors at trial, resulted in a miscarriage of justice." Gray v. Bicknell, 86 F.3d 1472, 1480 (8th Cir. 1996). On such a motion, the court may "open the judgment if one has been entered, take additional testimony, amend findings of fact and conclusions of law or make new ones, and direct the entry of a new judgment." Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a)(2). Under Rule 59, the decision to grant a motion for a new trial is in the trial court's discretion. Howard v. Mo. Bone & Joint Ctr., Inc., 615 F.3d 991, 995 (8th Cir. 2010). The trial court's "decision will not be reversed on appeal absent a clear abuse of that discretion." Id.
In its decision, the Supreme Court analyzed Exemption 4's protection from mandatory disclosure of " 'commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential.' " Food Mktg. Inst., 139 S. Ct. at 2362 (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4)). The Court rejected the "substantial competitive harm" test that was articulated in National Parks & Conservation Ass'n v. Morton, 498 F.2d 765, 770 (D.C. Cir. 1974). Food Mktg. Inst., 139 S. Ct. at 2364. The Court noted that FOIA does not define the term "confidential." Id. at 2362. The Court looked back to the "ordinary, contemporary, common meaning" of confidential when FOIA was enacted in 1966. Id. (internal qoutations). In reviewing contemporary dictionaries, the court determined that there were two conditions "that might be required for information communicated to another to be considered confidential." Id. at 2363. These twoconditions are: (1) "information communicated to another remains confidential whenever it is customarily kept private, or at least closely held, by the person imparting it" and (2) "information might be considered confidential only if the party receiving it provides some assurance that it will remain secret." Id. The Court held that at least the first condition must be met for information to be considered confidential under Exemption 4. Id. The Court found it "hard to see how information could be deemed confidential if its owner shares it freely." Id.
In applying its statutory interpretation to the facts, the Court found that both conditions were met. Id. As to the first condition, the Court stated that "there's no question that the Institute's members satisfy this condition; uncontested testimony established that the Institute's retailers customarily do not disclose store-level SNAP data or make it publicly available 'in any way.' " Id. The Court cited witnesses' testimony about only a small number of employees having access to such information. Id. For the second condition, the Court found that the retailers before them "clearly satisfy this condition too." Id. The Court noted that "the government has long promised them that it would keep their information private." Id.
In closing, the Court articulated its rule for confidential information under Exemption 4: "At least where commercial or financial information is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner and provided to the government under an assurance of privacy, the information is 'confidential' within the meaning of Exemption 4." Id. at 2366. The Court held that "the store-level SNAP data at issue here is confidential." Id. The Court reversed thejudgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Id.
Argus argues that basic fairness dictates that this court and Argus should have the opportunity to replay Argus Leader v. USDA under this new statutory interpretation from the Supreme Court. Docket 216 at 2. Argus bases its motion for a new trial on three main arguments. First, Argus argues that the Supreme Court created a new concept of "confidential" commercial information under Exemption 4. Docket 216 at 2. Second, Argus contends that the issue of whether the SNAP data was confidential under this new interpretation was not litigated at the 2016 court trial. Id. at 5. Third, Argus alleges that the Supreme Court's ruling strictly applies only to FMI members. Docket 229 at 3. FMI and USDA contend that the Supreme Court resolved the merits of this case and there is nothing left for...
To continue reading
Request your trial