Wilderness Soc. v. U.S. Dept. of Interior

129 Citing cases

  1. Ctr. for Pub. Integrity v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce

    401 F. Supp. 3d 108 (D.D.C. 2019)   Cited 7 times
    Holding agencies failed to comply with segregability obligations and ordering them to "disclose the header information in the disputed documents—dates, names of senders and recipients, titles, and subject-matter descriptions—that is segregable and non-exempt"

    "[A] blanket declaration that all facts are so intertwined to prevent disclosure under the FOIA does not constitute a sufficient explanation of non-segregability." Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. EPA , 279 F. Supp. 3d 121, 152 (D.D.C. 2017) (quoting Wilderness Soc'y v. U.S. Dep't of Interior , 344 F. Supp. 2d 1, 19 (D.D.C. 2004) ). "Rather, for each entry the defendant is required to ‘specify in detail which portions of the document are disclosable and which are allegedly exempt.’ " Wilderness Soc'y , 344 F. Supp. 2d at 19. (quoting Animal Legal Def. Fund, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Air Force , 44 F. Supp. 2d 295, 302 (D.D.C. 1999) (emphasis in original)).

  2. Heffernan v. Azar

    317 F. Supp. 3d 94 (D.D.C. 2018)   Cited 21 times
    Holding that descriptions of withheld information in draft press release were too "broad and vague" to "assist the [c]ourt in any meaningful manner," where they were "masked with discussions of the draft press releases as a whole"

    This "Circuit has made clear that simply designating a document as a ‘draft’ does not automatically make it privileged under the deliberative process privilege[,] ... [and] factual information which does not bear on the policy formulation is not subject to the deliberative process privilege." Wilderness Soc. v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, 344 F.Supp.2d 1, 14 (D.D.C. 2004) (Walton, J.) (internal citation omitted). Thus, the "[d]efendant[ ] must identify the function and significance ... in the agency's decision making process of all redacted and withheld documents to qualify them as exempt under the deliberative process privilege."

  3. Conservation Force v. Jewell

    66 F. Supp. 3d 46 (D.D.C. 2014)   Cited 20 times
    Holding that the agency must show that the communications "reflect" a confidential communication between a lawyer and client."

    NLRB v.Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 150, 95 S.Ct. 1504, 44 L.Ed.2d 29 (1975) (quoting Carl Zeiss Stiftung v. V.E.B. Carl Zeiss, Jena, 40 F.R.D. 318, 324 (D.D.C.1966) “The purpose of the deliberative process privilege is to ensure open communication between subordinates and superiors, prevent premature disclosure of policies before final adoption, and to avoid public confusion if grounds for policies that were not part of the final adopted agency policy happened to be exposed to the public.”Wilderness Soc'y v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, 344 F.Supp.2d 1, 10 (D.D.C.2004). Notably, “[t]he deliberative process privilege protects agency documents that are both predecisional and deliberative.”

  4. National Resources Defense Council v. United States Dept. of Defense

    388 F. Supp. 2d 1086 (C.D. Cal. 2005)   Cited 50 times
    Holding that the court was unable to assess whether documents were properly withheld in full or in part under the deliberative process privilege because the agency failed to address whether the documents "lost their predecisional status by being adopted as final policies or being shared with the public"

    An agency's Vaughn Index "must be sufficiently detailed to allow a court to determine whether the claimed exemptions apply to the withheld documents." Wilderness Soc'y v. United States DOI, 344 F.Supp.2d 1, 9 (D.D.C. 2004). Here, DoD has failed to carry its burden with regard to its withholdings under the deliberative process privilege and attorney-client privilege pursuant to Exemption 5.

  5. Brennan Ctr. for Justice at N.Y. Univ. Sch. of Law v. Dep't of Homeland Sec.

    331 F. Supp. 3d 74 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)   Cited 14 times
    Affirming the adequacy of a search based on the FBI's descriptions about the chosen manner for conducting the search, the nature of the records, and the design of the FBI's internal databases and recordkeeping systems

    "Examples of the type of documents that might qualify as predecisional are ‘recommendations, draft documents, proposals, suggestions, and other subjective documents which reflect the personal opinions of the writer rather than the policy of the agency.’ " Wilderness Soc. v. U.S. Dep't of Interior , 344 F.Supp.2d 1, 11 (D.D.C. 2004) (quoting Coastal States Gas Corp. v. Dep't of Energy , 617 F.2d 854, 866 (D.C. Cir. 1980) ). As to the second prong, "[a] document is deliberative if ‘the materials ... bear on the formulation or exercise of agency policy-oriented judgment. ’ " Wilderness Soc. , 344 F.Supp.2d at 11 (quoting Petroleum Info. Corp. v. Dep't of the Interior , 976 F.2d 1429, 1435 (D.C. Cir. 1992) ).

  6. Barouch v. U.S. Dep't of Justice

    962 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2013)   Cited 45 times
    Holding that a plaintiff may not constructively exhaust Privacy Act disclosure claims

    FOIA expressly requires agencies to extract “[a]ny reasonably segregable portion of a record” and provide it to the requesting party “after deletion of the portions which are exempt.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). “[I]t has long been the rule in this Circuit that non-exempt portions of a document must be disclosed unless they are inextricably intertwined with exempt portions.” Wilderness Soc'y v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, 344 F.Supp.2d 1, 18 (D.D.C.2004) (emphasis in original), quoting Mead Data Cent., Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Air Force, 566 F.2d 242, 260 (D.C.Cir.1977). Agencies and courts must “differentiate among the contents of a document rather than to treat it as an indivisible record for FOIA purposes.”

  7. Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP v. Internal Revenue Service

    537 F. Supp. 2d 128 (D.D.C. 2008)   Cited 14 times
    Finding that documents did not satisfy the deliberative process privilege where they “were not prepared to assist in the formulation of any agency policy or decision.... They were intended to brief [agency] employees once the Ruling was issued.”

    Further, in making a determination of whether a document is properly withheld under Exemption 5, "courts frequently examine whether `the document is so candid or personal in nature that public disclosure is likely in the future to stifle honest communication within the agency.'" Wilderness Soc. v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, 344 F. Supp. 2d 1, 15 (D.D.C. 2004) (quoting Coastal States, 617 F. 2d at 866). "However, in cases where there is no identifying information that would link an individual to a document, this potential is unlikely."

  8. General Electric Co. v. Johnson

    Civil Action No. 00-2855 (JDB) (D.D.C. Sep. 12, 2006)   Cited 13 times
    Holding that privilege does not protect materials that "amount[] to an affirmative determination by the agency that the party is legally responsible for a specific violation, and assigns certain attendant responsibilities and penalties"

    "`Accordingly, to approve exemption of a document as predecisional, a court must be able to pinpoint an agency decision or policy to which the document contributed.'" Id. (quoting Senate of Puerto Rico, 823 F.2d at 585); see also Wilderness Society v. United States Dep't of the Interior, 344 F. Supp. 2d 1, 12 (D.D.C. 2004) (ordering disclosure because agency failed to identify a specific, final agency decision). As with all privilege assertions, the agency bears the burden of demonstrating the final policy or decision that was reached at the end of the particular deliberative process that the document plays into.

  9. Am. Civil Liberties Union of N. Cal. v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation

    No. C 12-03728 SI (N.D. Cal. Sep. 16, 2014)   Cited 2 times
    Holding that "the FBI has sufficiently shown that these local law enforcement officers have a legitimate interest in keeping their individual names private" given "the extensive media attention both the Occupy movement and local law enforcement's response to the movement has received."

    "To meet its burden in this regard, the agency must 'provide[] a detailed justification and not just conclusory statements.'" Charles v. Office of the Armed Forces Med. Exam'r, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143076, at *19 (D.D.C. Oct. 2, 2013); see also Wilderness Soc'y v. United States DOI, 344 F. Supp. 2d 1, 19 (D.D.C. 2004) ("[A] blanket declaration that all facts are so intertwined to prevent disclosure under the FOIA does not constitute a sufficient explanation of non-segregability.") DISCUSSION

  10. Sciacca v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation

    23 F. Supp. 3d 17 (D.D.C. 2014)   Cited 17 times
    Denying motion for summary judgment because agency's coded index did not "bother even to list or describe the responsive documents at issue" and did "not provide any information on the segregability of the documents that were entirely withheld"

    And while “[a]gencies are entitled to a presumption that they complied with the obligation to disclose reasonably segregable material,” id. at 1117, “a blanket declaration that all facts are so intertwined to prevent disclosure under the FOIA does not constitute a sufficient explanation of non-segregability .... rather, for each entry the defendant is required to specify in detail which portions of the document are disclosable and which are allegedly exempt.” Wilderness Soc'y v. Dep't of Interior, 344 F.Supp.2d 1, 19 (D.D.C.2004) (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). As noted above, Magistrate Judge Facciola's Report and Recommendation found that Defendants had failed to carry their burden of showing the documents withheld in full contained no reasonably segregable information.