Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Fur-Ever Wild

Background

Animal Legal Defense Fund and Lockwood Animal Rescue Center sued Fur-Ever Wild, Wolves, Woods & Wildlife, and Teresa Lynn Petter. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants’ transfer of wolves violated the Endangered Species Act. They also alleged that the defendants bred wolf puppies for “pet-n-plays,” killed young wolves when they were no longer puppies, and sold their pelts and other parts for profit.

The parties later reached an agreement about how the defendants would handle their wolves, and the court entered a consent order enforcing that agreement. The order required five days’ advance notice of transfers and treated information identifying transferee facilities as confidential under the specified procedure. The court later clarified that defendants could provide identifying information either to the plaintiffs or to the court under seal.

The plaintiffs then sought discovery about wolf transfers occurring on or after December 1, 2012. Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion to compel, ordering disclosure, to the extent known, of the full name and contact information of each person or entity to whom a defendant or someone acting for a defendant had transferred an animal of wolf lineage. The contact information was defined as a home or business address, telephone number, and email address. Judge Bowbeer did not decide whether the information should be designated confidential under the protective order because the parties had not properly briefed that question.

Issues and analysis

The defendants objected to the discovery ruling. The district court could modify or set aside the magistrate judge’s ruling only if it was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

The defendants argued that disclosure would intrude on the privacy interests of third parties. The court rejected that objection. It explained that privacy concerns should generally be addressed through a protective order limiting who receives sensitive information, rather than by withholding relevant information altogether. The existing protective order allowed a party or nonparty to designate documents as confidential, but the court declined to decide whether this particular information should receive that designation because the issue was not properly before it.

The court agreed with Judge Bowbeer that the transferee information was relevant and proportional under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1). The court said that what happened to wolves born at the defendants’ facility, including who received them, was central to the plaintiffs’ claims. The defendants had not shown that producing the information would impose an undue burden or expense. The court also concluded that concerns about threats, harassment, public humiliation, or pressure directed at transferees were properly addressed through the protective order.

The defendants also argued that the consent order allowed them to provide the requested information to the court privately rather than produce it in discovery. The district court disagreed. It concluded that the consent order addressed information identifying transferees when provided under the order’s transfer-notice procedure, but did not address information sought through discovery or change the defendants’ general discovery obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Disposition

The court denied the defendants’ objections to the magistrate judge’s order and affirmed Judge Bowbeer’s ruling granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs’ motion to compel. The court did not decide whether the transferee contact information should be designated confidential under the protective order.

This was a discovery ruling, not a decision on the underlying Endangered Species Act claims.