The Law Center challenged the CDC’s interpretation of a federal statute as the basis for withholding all information regarding an inspection at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. According to media reports, the inspection found “widespread regulatory non-compliance” at the UH labs that handle biological toxins. But the CDC denied access to the inspection report in its entirety, citing a law that only authorized redaction of information that met specific criteria. After the CDC disclosed a redacted version of the inspection records during summary judgment briefing, U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright granted in part and denied in part the parties’ respective motions by written order on August 30, 2016. Case No. 1:16-cv-00008-JMS-KSC. The Law Center filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on October 26, 2016. No. 16-16960. After initial briefing completed on appeal, the CDC released a less redacted version of the inspection records. On July 10, 2019, the Ninth Circuit overturned the CDC’s interpretation of the federal statute as it concerned references to the University of Hawaii and its personnel; vacated the District Court’s interpretation of the federal statute as it concerned references to regulatory deficiencies because the CDC released that information on appeal, mooting the issue; and affirmed redacting the identity of the CDC employees who inspected UH because no evidence of public interest in their identities was proffered. On remand, the case settled with the CDC’s disclosure of the requested records, redacting only the identity of CDC employees who inspected UH.
- Complaint (1/7/16)
- Answer (2/12/16)
- Motions for Summary Judgment
- CDC’s Motion for Summary Judgment (5/11/16)
- CBLC Counter Motion for Summary Judgment (6/13/16)
- CDC Opposition and Reply Memorandum (7/5/16)
- CBLC Reply Memorandum (7/11/16)
- Order Requiring Supplemental Filings (7/20/16)
- CDC Supplemental Response with Declarations (8/3/16)
- CBLC Supplemental Memorandum (8/10/16)
- Court Minutes Requiring Clarification from CDC (8/15/16)
- CDC Clarification (8/17/16)
- Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Summary Judgment (8/30/16)
- Judgment (8/30/16)
- Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs
- Memorandum in Support of Motion (9/13/16)
- Memorandum in Opposition to Motion (10/7/16)
- Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion (10/21/16)
- Minute Order for Supplemental Briefing from Defendant (12/27/16)
- Defendant’s Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition (1/10/17)
- Findings and Recommendation to Grant in Part and Deny in Part Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs (1/31/17)
- Order Adopting Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations (2/16/17)
- Notice of Appeal (10/26/16)
- Plaintiff-Appellant’s Opening Brief (2/3/17)
- Excerpts of Record
- Brief for Appellee (4/5/17)
- Plaintiff-Appellant’s Reply Brief (4/19/17)
- Motion to Strike Portion of Addendum to Brief of Appellee (4/17/17)
- Notice of Agency Disclosures and Suggestion of Partial Mootness (5/2/17)
- Further Agency Disclosures – mailed, not filed (5/2/17)
- Motion for Leave to Supplement the Record and to Submit Supplemental Briefing (5/8/17)
- Defendant-Appellee’s Opposition to Motion to Supplement (5/15/17)
- Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Supplement (5/17/17)
- Order: Granting in Part Supplemental Briefing (3/6/18)
- Plaintiff-Appellant’s Supplemental Brief on Partial Mootness (3/16/18)
- Supplemental Brief for Appellee (3/23/18)
- Plaintiff-Appellant’s Supplemental Reply Brief on Partial Mootness (3/30/18)
- Oral Argument (10/9/18)
- Opinion (7/10/19)
- Motion for Attorney’s Fees (9/6/19)
- CDC Motion to Remand Fees Determination (9/23/19)
- CBLC Opposition to Motion to Remand (9/24/19)
- CDC Motion to Remand Fees Determination (9/23/19)
- Final Agency Disclosure (2/4/20)