\u201cUS Recognizes Pablo Escobar\u2019s Cocaine Hippos as People\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cPablo Escobar\u2019s Cocaine Hippos are Legally People\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cPablo Escobar\u2019s \u2018cocaine hippos\u2019 can be legally recognized as people, U.S. court finds\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n There were at least 19 such reports.\u00a0 These reports seem to stem from an October 20, 2021 post on the website of the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) concerning a ruling by a federal district court in Ohio on an application for domestic discovery in aid of a foreign proceeding.\u00a0 ALDF entitled its post, \u201cAnimals Recognized as Legal Persons for the First Time in U.S. Court.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0 Calling this ruling a \u201ccritical milestone,\u201d ALDF proclaimed that the court had \u201crecognized animals as legal persons for the first time in the United States.\u201d<\/p>\n Notably, ALDF\u2019s post had no link to the actual ruling of the court.\u00a0 Nor did any of the other internet articles that we could locate.\u00a0 A further examination of the docket revealed the nature of this limited matter and the perfunctory decision.<\/p>\n The case, captioned Community of Hippopotamuses Living in the Magdalena River, Applicant, To Issue Subpoenas For The Taking of Depositions Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1782<\/em>,\u00a0 No. 1:21-mc-00023-TSB-KLL (S.D. Ohio), was an application by an ALDF lawyer and another lawyer under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1782 for an order to take the testimony of two U.S. witnesses for a case pending in Colombia.\u00a0 The Colombian lawsuit in question is an action to restrain the Columbian government from using lethal methods to control a population of hippos that emanated from Escobar\u2019s private menagerie, that escaped, and that now live in the Magdalena River Basin.\u00a0 \u00a0The application seeks the testimony of two U.S. witnesses who apparently have knowledge of ways to control animal populations with non-lethal birth control methods.<\/p>\n Under section 1782(a), an \u201cinterested person\u201d can seek an order from a federal court allowing discovery to be taken in support of a foreign proceeding.\u00a0 Contrary to the implications of its internet posting, ALDF did not argue that the hippos are \u201cpersons\u201d and therefore covered by section 1782(a).\u00a0 Instead, they argued that because Colombian law permits animals to sue, the hippos were parties to a foreign lawsuit and, on that basis, were to be considered \u201cinterested persons.\u201d\u00a0 Indeed, ALDF effectively recognized that the hippos were not persons under U.S. law.\u00a0 They argued that because the hippos were considered to be litigants in Colombia, they must be recognized as \u201cinterested persons\u201d under section 1782(a) \u201ceven if they would not be recognized as persons in our domestic legal system for other purposes\u2026.\u201d<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0 Application, p. 8 (emphasis added.)<\/p>\n As ALDF also knows from its own litigation in the U.S., an animal will be considered a \u201cperson\u201d only if the legislature says so.\u00a0 Section 1782 does not have its own definition of \u201cperson,\u201d so one must look to the Dictionary Act, 1 U.S.C. \u00a7 1 which provides that \u201cunless the context indicates otherwise \u2026 \u2018person\u2019 \u2026 include[s] corporations, companies, associations, firms partnerships, societies and joint stock companies, as well as individuals.\u201d\u00a0 Animals are not mentioned.\u00a0 And animals aren\u2019t \u201cindividuals\u201d because the ordinary meaning of that term is \u201chuman being.\u201d\u00a0 All of this was established in ALDF v. USDA<\/em>, 933 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2019), where ALDF tried unsuccessfully to argue that a Bengal tiger is an \u201cindividual\u201d within the meaning of the Freedom of Information Act.<\/p>\n ALDF\u2019s application was ex parte<\/em> \u2013 which means that no one was there from the other side in the Colombian case to oppose it.\u00a0 The entire case was over and done with in a single day:\u00a0 October 15, 2021.<\/p>\n It is also important to note that, contrary to the implications of ALDF\u2019s internet post, the court made no finding that hippos are \u201clegal persons\u201d or people, or anything close to that.\u00a0 In fact, the order makes no findings at all.\u00a0 All the court did was sign the order in the form that the applicant\u2019s lawyers drafted.\u00a0 The entirety of the court\u2019s order is posted below:<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/38\/2021\/10\/Hippo-Order-ScreenShot-2.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n