Chen v. Vilsack
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:23-cv-01440
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Chen v. Rollins, Judge Caproni ordered defendants to file a factual statement and later identify the USDA administrator’s successor.
The plaintiffs, the defendants sued in their official capacities, and the future USDA Food and Nutrition Service administrator whose name will be used in later captions.
What happened
In Haiyan Chen, Kenya Watson, S.O., Gertrude Cribbs, Hana Broome, and Mei Ieng Lee v. Brooke L. Rollins and Dr. Tameka Owens, the parties had filed competing requests for judgment based on the existing record. Plaintiffs also submitted factual materials from outside that record and a related factual statement.
The court ordered defendants to file a statement responding to plaintiffs’ factual assertions by March 20, 2025. The court did not decide whether it would consider the materials outside the record. The court also ordered defendants to identify the next administrator of the USDA Food and Nutrition Service within five days after that administrator is confirmed, because the current officials no longer held their positions.
Judge Valerie Caproni issued this case-management order and did not decide the pending requests for judgment or the parties’ underlying legal dispute.
The detailed version
- Chen v. Vilsack · No. 1:23-cv-01440
- Valerie Caproni
- Mar. 18, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs sued Brooke L. Rollins, in her official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and Dr. Tameka Owens, in her official capacity as Acting Administrator of the USDA Food and Nutrition Service. The parties were briefing cross-motions for summary judgment, which ask the court to decide a case without a trial when the relevant facts are not genuinely disputed.
The court had previously directed the parties to follow its individual practice and Local Rule 56.1(e) when filing factual statements. On December 18, 2024, the plaintiffs moved for summary judgment and raised materials outside the administrative record, meaning materials beyond the record created by the agency. The plaintiffs also filed a Rule 56.1 Statement addressing those materials. Defendants later opposed the plaintiffs’ motion and cross-moved for summary judgment. Defendants stated that such a factual statement is normally not required in a case seeking review of administrative action under the Administrative Procedure Act, and they had not filed one.
Orders
The court ordered defendants to file a Rule 56.1 Statement by Thursday, March 20, 2025. The statement needed to respond to the assertions in the plaintiffs’ Rule 56.1 Statement. Defendants were not required to add other factual allegations, although they could do so. The court reminded the parties that their filings should result in one consolidated Rule 56.1 Statement at the end of briefing.
The court expressly stated that it was not deciding whether the plaintiffs’ materials outside the administrative record could properly be considered in resolving the cross-motions for summary judgment. The order therefore did not grant or deny either summary-judgment motion.
Substitution of officials
The court noted that the officials named as defendants no longer held their USDA positions. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), when a public officer sued in an official capacity leaves office while a case is pending, the officer’s successor is automatically substituted as the party. The court ordered defendants, within five days after confirmation of the next Administrator of the USDA Food and Nutrition Service, to file a docket letter identifying that official so the parties and court could use the correct names in future captions.
Judge Valerie Caproni entered these procedural orders on March 18, 2025.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.