Plaintiffs-ASPCA filed suit against Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus and Feld Entertainment, Inc, under the citizen-suit provision of the Endangered Species Act.  Plaintiffs allege that FEI routinely beats elephants, chains them for long periods of time, hits them with sharp bull hooks, breaks baby elephants with force to make them submissive, and forcibly removes baby elephants from their mothers before they are weaned. This conduct, plaintiffs contend, violates the "take" provision of the ESA. Defendants counter that certain of the elephants are subject to a captive-bred wildlife permit issued by the FWS and others are exempted by the ESA's “pre-Act” exemption. In the court's opinion regarding defendants' motion for summary judgment, the court held that the pre-Act exemption does not insulate defendant from claims of taking under the ESA. However, the court found that the captive-bred wildlife (CBW) permit held by defendant does not allow for challenge under a citizen-suit provision. Enforcement of the CBW is exclusively the province of the Department of the Interior according to the pertinent regulations. 

The court also considered a motion by defendants to prevent plaintiffs from using materials obtained in discovery to compile press releases and other public media. In support, defendants referenced the court's 2005 order reminding the parties on the purposes of discovery, which also contained an admonishment by court to not abuse the discovery process for publicity purposes. The court, however, declined "defendant’s invitation to treat the Court’s admonishment as a protective order."

The court also denied defendants' Motion for Leave to Amend Answers to Assert Additional Defense and Counterclaim; specifically, a RICO counterclaim based on an alleged elaborate scheme by the organizational plaintiffs and Tom Rider to ban Asian elephants from circuses and defraud FEI of money, as well as an affirmative defense of unlcean hands. The court found that the three and a half years after defendants' filing of their original answer in this case, and almost seven years after the central issues in this case were first brought to the Court’s attention in a companion case reflected a dilatory motive.

Also among the materials is the court's consideration of defendants motion to compel the testimony of Tom Eugene Rider, which was limited by the court so as not to intrude on his privacy outside the scope of relevant testimony.

Memorandum Opinion regarding Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (08/23/2007) (pdf file - 87.29 KB)

Memorandum Opinion regarding Defendant's Motion for Leave to Amend Answers to Assert Additional Defense and Counterclaim (08/23/2007) (pdf file - 65.17 KB)

Order from the Court regarding Defendant's Expedited Motion to Enforce the Court’s September 26, 2005 Order (discovery) (08/23/2007) (pdf file - 36.20 KB)

Order from the Court regarding Defendant's Motion to Compel Testimony of Plaintiff Tom Eugene Rider and for Costs and Fees (08/23/2007) (pdf file 61.35 KB)