Informed Consent Action Network v. United States Food and Drug Administration
- Alison Nathan
- 1:20-cv-00689
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Informed Consent Action Network v. United States Food and Drug Administration: Judge Nathan upheld an order quashing unauthorized discovery in this Freedom of Information Act case.
The ruling affected Informed Consent Action Network’s ability to pursue the challenged discovery requests in its Freedom of Information Act case against the United States Food and Drug Administration.
What happened
Informed Consent Action Network v. United States Food and Drug Administration concerned the plaintiff’s objection to a magistrate judge’s order that canceled unauthorized discovery requests in the plaintiff’s Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.
The plaintiff argued that an earlier court order allowed it to seek discovery. The court explained that the earlier order allowed the plaintiff to request discovery, not to demand any particular kind. It also said that, in a Freedom of Information Act case, discovery demands cannot be served before the court finds agency bad faith or that the agency failed to meet its legal burden. The plaintiff had not made that showing.
Judge Alison J. Nathan concluded that the magistrate judge’s order was not clearly wrong or contrary to law and upheld it. The opinion therefore left in place the order quashing the plaintiff’s discovery requests.
The detailed version
- Informed Consent Action Network v. United States Food and Drug Administration · No. 1:20-cv-00689
- Alison Nathan
- Oct. 26, 2020
Background
The plaintiff objected to a September 24, 2020 order by Magistrate Judge Aaron granting the defendant’s motion to quash, or cancel, the plaintiff’s unauthorized discovery requests. The objection was made under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), which permits a party to object to a magistrate judge’s nondispositive order. The district judge must modify or set aside the order if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
Court’s Analysis
Judge Nathan determined that Magistrate Judge Aaron’s order was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. The court held that its June 3, 2020 order allowed the plaintiff to seek discovery but did not give the plaintiff a right to obtain any particular type or form of discovery.
The court also relied on the rule that, in a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act, a plaintiff cannot serve discovery demands before the court finds that the plaintiff has shown agency bad faith or that the agency has not met its burden under that statute. Judge Nathan concluded that the plaintiff had not made the required showing.
Ruling
The court upheld Magistrate Judge Aaron’s order quashing the plaintiff’s unauthorized discovery requests. The opinion does not state a separate disposition using the word “denied” for the plaintiff’s objection, but its conclusion leaves the challenged order in place.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.