‘PETA v. Stony Brook University’ Case Summary

Case Name: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. The State University of New York at Stony Brook
Index Number: 1369-17
Court: Supreme Court of New York for Suffolk County

In March 2017, after exhausting administrative appeals, PETA filed a verified petition under the New York Consolidated Laws, Civil Practice Law and Rules (Article 78), alleging that Stony Brook University (SBU), a publicly funded research institution within the State University of New York university system, improperly withheld public records related to animal research in violation of the New York Freedom of Information Law (FOIL). The case was brought in the Suffolk County Supreme Court.

We requested complete research protocols approved by SBU’s Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) relating to research protocol number 714306, in which experimenters removed rabbits’ nictitating membranes (a translucent third eyelid that some animals have to help protect and moisten their eyes); veterinary care and medical records for all rabbits used in the same protocol; and protocols for which Craig Evinger, a faculty member of SBU’s Department of Neurobiology and Behavior, was either a principal investigator or a coinvestigator. In response, SBU produced the requested veterinary and medical records with extensive redactions—essentially concealing the bulk of substantive information contained in them. As purported justification for these redactions, SBU broadly gestured at exceptions to disclosure requirements under FOIL related to protected trade secrets, public safety, and personal privacy, without explaining how each purported exemption related to the specific information requested.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture had previously cited SBU for violations of the federal Animal Welfare Act with respect to the research protocol in question, including for the following:

• Failing to consider alternatives for the procedure involving the removal of a rabbit’s nictitating membrane (i.e., a “painful procedure”)
• Removing a rabbit’s nictitating membrane without first having this procedure approved by the IACUC
• Failing to monitor the rabbits properly during the procedures in order to document that the animals were under the proper depth of anesthesia and not feeling any pain
• The death of a rabbit following an incident in which the animal became wedged between the grill openings of a cage

The Suffolk County Supreme Court Rules in Favor of PETA and Orders SBU to Pay $140,000 in Attorneys’ Fees

SBU moved to dismiss our petition, arguing that it failed to state a cause of action. In March 2019, the court denied SBU’s motion to dismiss. The court ruled in our favor under Article 78 upon consideration of the verified petition and the administrative record annexed thereto, the university’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, our opposition to that motion, and affidavits and memoranda of law submitted in support of these various filings.

On March 5, 2019, the court ordered SBU to provide newly unredacted veterinary medical records and IACUC-approved research protocols within 20 days of receipt of a copy of the order with notice of entry, or by April 9, 2019. Rather than comply with the order and produce the requested records, SBU moved for an order to show cause and motion to reargue. The court granted the application for reargument and permitted SBU to file an answer to the petition. After extensive briefing and court-ordered meet-and-confer sessions, SBU finally produced the requested documents in February and March 2023.

Following our success in obtaining the requested records, the court ordered SBU to pay PETA up to $140,000 in attorneys’ fees.