FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The agency, through APHIS, administers and enforces the AWA, which Congress enacted to, inter alia, “insure that animals intended for use in research facilities or for exhibition purposes or for use as pets are provided humane care and treatment.” 7 U.S.C. § 2131(1). Animals covered by the AWA may include those in zoos, circuses, marine mammal facilities; those destined for commercial pet trade; those transported on commercial airlines or other common carriers; and those used for research.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN DEFENSE OF ANIMALS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT ) OF AGRICULTURE, ) ) Civil Action No. 02-0557 (RWR) Defendant, ) ) and ) ) LIFE SCIENCES RESEARCH, INC., ) ) Intervenor-Defendant. ) ) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Preliminary Statement Plaintiff commenced this action under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552 (2000 & West Supp. II 2002), seeking access to records concerning an investigation by defendant United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) of Huntingdon Life Sciences (Huntingdon), a wholly-owned subsidiary of intervenor-defendant Life Sciences Research, Inc.,1 for alleged violations of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), 7 U.S.C. §§ 2131-59 (2000). In support of its renewed motion for summary judgment, defendant has filed herewith the Case 1:02-cv-00557-RWR Document 39 Filed 08/03/05 Page 12 of 42 -2- 2 The first and second declarations of Hugh Gilmore [hereinafter First Gilmore Decl.

at 566. Along similar lines, in Alternatives Research & Development Foundation v. Glickman, 101 F.Supp.2d 7, 11 (D.C.Cir.2000), a researcher challenged a regulation excluding birds, mice, and rats from coverage under the Animal Welfare Act, 7 U.S.C. sec. 2131 et seq. The court granted standing, finding that the researcher's aesthetic interest was injured when she had to observe rats that had been subjected to inadequate food, water, housing, and veterinary care.

2 Case 1:16-cv-00914-CRC Document 15 Filed 10/18/16 Page 3 of 19 agenda; specifically, Animal Legal's position - also argued in Animal Legal I - that USDA was not an effective regulator2 as well as the closure of Cricket Hollow Zoo. (AR 52-53, 57) For reasons set forth below, Plaintiff has failed to establish that the agency's decision denying Animal Legal' s request to intervene violated the AP A. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On July 30, 2015, in an exercise of its enforcement authority under the Animal Welfare Act ("AWA"), 7 U.S.C. §§ 2131-2159 (2012), APHIS filed an administrative complaint against Cricket Hollow Zoo, Inc. and the Sellners (collectively, "Cricket Hollow"). (AR 3-23) The Complaint recounted prior regulatory activities taken by APHIS against Cricket Hollow, including prior notices of violations, the prior imposition of civil penalties, and the suspension of Cricket Hollow's license in June 2015 pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 2149(a).

) The United States Department of Agriculture through its Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) enforces -5- the Animal Welfare Act in the City. (7 U.S.C. §§ 2131, et seq.; https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/banner/aboutaphis.) This is particularly relevant here because Leider unsuccessfully tried to prove that the City and Lewis violated 9 C.F.R. section 3.128. (6 CT 1351-1352.)

Facilities that breed and sell their animals to pet stores are required to obtain a license from USDA. 7 USC § 2131. Just last year, the Illinois passed the “Puppy Lemon Law,” P.A. 98- 593.

Through the AWA, Congress directed USDA to “insure that animals intended for use…as pets are provided humane care and treatment.” 7 U.S.C. § 2131. To that end, all pet “dealers” must have a license issued by USDA in order to sell, transport or buy animals.

Those requests sought the release of information submitted to the agency by USDA-licensed dog breeders and dealers as part of their relicensing applications pursuant to the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). 7 U.S.C. §§ 2131 et seq. Defendant initially withheld the information, citing various exemptions to the FOIA, despite the fact that the agency had routinely provided this very same category of information to HSUS in the past.

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN DEFENSE OF ANIMALS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT ) OF AGRICULTURE, ) ) Civil Action No. 02-0557 (RWR) Defendant, ) ) and ) ) LIFE SCIENCES RESEARCH, INC., ) ) Intervenor-Defendant. ) ) DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff commenced this action on March 22, 2002, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552 (2000 & Supp. II 2002), seeking access to certain records concerning an investigation by defendant United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) of Huntingdon Life Sciences (Huntingdon), a wholly-owned subsidiary of intervenor-defendant Life Sciences Research, Inc. for alleged violations of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), 7 U.S.C. §§ 2131-59 (2000). On December 12, 2002, defendant moved for summary judgment on the basis that defendant properly withheld certain agency records from plaintiff; plaintiff thereafter filed a cross-motion for summary judgment; and by Order dated September 28, 2004, the Case 1:02-cv-00557-RWR Document 43 Filed 11/30/05 Page 1 of 25 -2- Court ordered defendant to produce a supplemental Vaughn Index, which defendant did on December 22, 2004.

PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Preliminary Statement Plaintiff In Defense of Animals (“IDA”) brought this Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) case over four and a half years ago to obtain access to the closed investigatory records of the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) concerning its 1997 investigation of Huntingdon Life Sciences (“Huntingdon”). Although the USDA charged Huntingdon on March 30, 1998 with more than 20 separate violations of the Animal Welfare Act (“AWA”), 7 U.S.C. §§ 2131 et seq., including the failure to provide treatment to animals suffering extreme pain, and the failure to use appropriate methods to prevent and treat injuries in animals, a week later, the USDA entered into a settlement that required Huntingdon to pay a fine of only $10,000. IDA submitted its original FOIA request – and continues to seek access to the agency’s long dormant investigatory records – in an effort to shed some light on whether the agency diligently carried out its duties under the Animal Welfare Act and why, if in fact the agency had amassed considerable evidence of so many violations of the statute by this particular animal research Case 1:02-cv-00557-RWR Document 42 Filed 10/28/05 Page 5 of 30 1Huntingdon has intervened in the case, and filed a motion for summary judgment joining the government’s motion.