OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs Bernardino Mora (“Mora”) and The Brother’s Grocery & Deli Corp. (“Brothers Grocery”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) brought this action pursuant to 7 U.S.C. §2023(a)(13), (15) and 7 C.F.R. §279.7 challenging Plaintiffs’ permanent disqualification from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (“SNAP”) by the Food and Nutrition Service (“FNS”), a unit of the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”). (Docket No. 1) (“Complaint”). Plaintiffs were disqualified from SNAP after the FNS concluded that Plaintiffs trafficked SNAP benefits, as defined in 7 C.F.R. §271.2. The United States of America (“Defendant” or “Government”) now moves for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure seeking to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint in its entirety. (Docket No. 22). Plaintiffs oppose the motion on the merits, (Docket No. 31) (“Pl. Br.”), and alternatively argue that the Court should deny the motion so Plaintiffs can conduct additional discovery pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), (id. at 17-20). For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted.1 I. BACKGROUND The following facts are gathered from the parties’ 56.1 statements and counterstatements, the exhibits attached to the parties’ submissions, and the declarations submitted by the parties in support of their contentions. The facts are construed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Wandering Dago, Inc. v. Destito, 879 F.3d 20, 30 (2d Cir. 2018). The facts are not in dispute, unless otherwise noted. A. Factual Background 1. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program SNAP was created through the Food Stamp Act (“FSA”) to facilitate “low-income households” in obtaining “a more nutritious diet through normal channels of trade by increasing food purchasing power for all eligible households who apply for participation.” 7 U.S.C. §2011. SNAP is administered by the FNS, a branch of the USDA. (Docket No. 25 1) (“Def. 56.1″). At the beginning of each month, “[a] household’s SNAP benefits are delivered through electronic benefit transfer [("EBT")] cards.” (Docket No. 23 4) (“Correy Decl.”). SNAP benefits “may be used to purchase eligible food items at authorized retail stores,” called “firms.” (Id. 3); see also 7 C.F.R. §271.2. FNS classifies SNAP-authorized firms based on the firm’s characteristics, e.g., “convenience store,” “small grocery store,” “large grocery store,” “superstore.” (Id. 14). EBT cards operate like debit cards. (Def. 56.1 3). “When a SNAP recipient wants to purchase food, retailers swipe the beneficiary’s EBT card through an EBT terminal and the recipient enters a personal identification number on a keypad.” (Id.). Alternatively, a recipient’s EBT account information can be entered manually. (Correy Decl. 4). The purchase amount is deducted from the recipient’s EBT account and credited to the retailer’s bank account. (Id.). The system is entirely cashless. (Id.). Firms participating in SNAP are governed by specific regulations. See 7 C.F.R. §278.6. Firm owners must attest to their familiarity with and intention to adhere to SNAP regulations. (Correy Decl. 6). Among other things, participating firms are prohibited from engaging in “‘trafficking,’ i.e., exchanging SNAP benefits for ‘cash or consideration other than eligible food.’” (Id. (quoting 7 C.F.R. §271.2)). “Trafficking is the most egregious type of SNAP violation” as it “defrauds the taxpayer and thwarts the program’s goal of helping low-income families put healthy food on the table.” (Id. 8). A firm may be permanently disqualified from SNAP for a single trafficking violation. 7 C.F.R. §278.6(e)(1). However, FNS has discretion to issue a Civil Monetary Penalty (“CMP”) in lieu of disqualification if the violating firm submits substantial evidence demonstrating that the firm satisfied the requirements of 7 C.F.R. §278.6(i). (Correy Decl. 7). Among other things, 7 C.F.R. §278.6(i) “require[s] the presence of an effective compliance program to prevent SNAP violations that was in effect prior to the violations.” (Id.). FNS records each transaction at the time of its occurrence and periodically reviews EBT data. (Id.
5, 9). Specifically, FNS uses a computer algorithm called the EBT Anti-Fraud Locator Using Electronic Benefit Retailer Transactions (“ALERT System”) to identify “possibly suspicious transaction[s].” (Id. 9). The ALERT System generates a “flag” when it detects a suspicious transaction, which is stored in the system. (Id.). The system scans approximately 250 million transactions per month and “assigns a numeric score to each store based on the likelihood of trafficking.” Kathy Larin et al., Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Actions Needed to Better Measure and Address Retailer Trafficking, GOV’T ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE (December 2018) https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-19-167.pdf. “Stores with scores above a certain threshold are” prioritized for review “based on factors such as average transaction amounts that are excessive for that type of store.” Id. When FNS staff discern a pattern of questionable transactions, the case is referred to a Program Specialist within the Retailer Operations Division (“ROD”). (Correy Decl. 9). The Program Specialist reviews and investigates the flagged transactions by, inter alia, arranging for an FNS contractor to visit the firm and comparing the firm’s EBT data to that of comparable or nearby firms. (Id.
