2741 Brothers Deli Grocery Inc. v. United States Department of Agriculture
2741 Brothers Deli Grocery Inc. v. United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service
- Ona Wang
- 1:22-cv-09317
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In 2741 Brothers Deli Grocery v. United States Department of Agriculture, Magistrate Judge Wang granted the government’s request to file a redacted administrative record.
The ruling affects the plaintiffs, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service, and third parties whose personal or commercial information appears in the administrative record. It permits a redacted record to be filed publicly.
What happened
2741 Brothers Deli Grocery Inc. v. United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service concerns the plaintiffs’ request for review of their permanent disqualification from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
The government asked for permission to file a redacted version of the certified administrative record. It said the record contained sensitive personal and commercial information, including electronic-benefits-transfer card numbers, household numbers, and agency and store identification numbers. The plaintiffs consented to the request.
Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang granted the application. The order addressed only the filing of a redacted administrative record and did not decide the underlying disqualification dispute.
The detailed version
- 2741 Brothers Deli Grocery Inc. v. United States Department of Agriculture · No. 1:22-cv-09317
- Ona Wang
- Jan. 3, 2024
Background
The plaintiffs seek judicial review of a permanent disqualification from participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. The government represents the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service in the case.
The Government’s Request
The government asked for permission to file a redacted version of the certified administrative record on the public docket. It relied on a protective order entered on August 3, 2023, and the court’s individual rules. The government said the record contains information about electronic-benefits-transfer card recipients and stores participating in the program, including agency identification numbers, electronic-benefits-transfer card numbers, household numbers, and other confidential personal or similar information.
The government argued that redaction was appropriate because federal privacy laws and regulations protect this information and because the privacy interests of third parties outweighed the value of publicly disclosing the redacted information. The plaintiffs consented to the request.
Ruling
Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang entered the order: “Application GRANTED.” The ruling allows the government to file a redacted version of the administrative record. The supplied opinion does not decide whether the plaintiffs’ disqualification was lawful or otherwise resolve the underlying dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.