FOIA Advisor

Court opinions issued Apr. 5, 2017

Court Opinions (2015-2023)Allan BlutsteinComment

Reddick v. U.S. Dep't of Energy (E.D. Wash.) -- dismissing case as moot because agency -- prior to scheduled bench trial -- released disputed document in full to plaintiff and agreed to pay all litigation costs. 

Smith v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (D. Colo.) -- finding that plaintiff, an immigration attorney, had standing to litigate claim that agency has pattern and practice of denying FOIA requests that might assist fugitive aliens.   

Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.

FOIA News: Feds refuse to release US attorneys' resignation letters

FOIA News (2015-2023)Kevin SchmidtComment

Feds refuse to release US attorneys' resignation letters

By Adam Silverman, Burlington Free Press, April 6, 2017

The Justice Department is refusing to disclose letters of resignation from U.S. attorneys who left their posts at the request of the Trump administration.

The letters — sent by public officials in response to a directive from the president and the attorney general — are so "inherently personal" that they are exempt from release, a Justice Department lawyer wrote in rejecting a Freedom of Information Act request from the Burlington Free Press.

Open-government experts questioned that reasoning.

...

Five FOIA experts who spoke with the Free Press this week took issue with that reasoning — including a former Justice Department lawyer who worked exclusively on freedom-of-information requests and appeals.

"As a FOIA matter, this is a pretty clear-cut mistake," said Allan Blutstein, who served from 2004-09, mostly during the administration of Republican President George W. Bush. Blutstein now is vice president of FOIA operations at America Rising, a conservative political action committee.

Blutstein said the Justice Department's denial letter and the speed with which Brinkmann sent it — less than 10 days after receiving the request — suggest department staff conducted no search for responsive records and relied instead on the belief that all the resignation letters are exempt from disclosure.

FOIA News: 4/20/17 - OGIS Public Meeting & FOIA Advisory Committee Session

FOIA News (2015-2023)Ryan MulveyComment

OGIS Public Meeting and FOIA Advisory Committee Session: April 20th

Nat'l Archives, The FOIA Ombudsman, Apr. 5, 2017

Mark your calendars to join us in the William G. McGowan Theater in the National Archives’ downtown DC location on Thursday, April 20th for two events!

The day will kick off with OGIS’s first public meeting beginning at 9 am.  This meeting (which is a new requirement created by the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016) is intended to provide the public with an update on the office’s activities, and give members of the public an opportunity to present oral or written statements. You can get a preview of our reports and other work over the last year by reading our recently-released Fiscal Year 2016 Annual Report. Register to attend the event via Eventbrite and please contact Amy Bennett at amy.bennett@nara.gov or 202-741-5782 with any questions about the event.

After a short break, we will re-convene at 10 am EDT for the next scheduled meeting of the FOIA Advisory Committee. During the meeting, co-chairs of the Committee’s three subcommittees – Search; Efficiencies and Resources; and Proactive Disclosure and Accessibility – will present updates on their work. The agenda (draft agenda will be posted on this page soon) also includes a special presentation on the use of e-discovery tools to locate records that are responsive to a FOIA request. Register via Eventbrite to join us in person.

If you cannot join us in person, both meetings will be livestreamed via the National Archives’ YouTube Channel. Be sure to check out the Events tab on our website for updates and follow @FOIA_Ombuds for a link to the broadcast.

Read the original post here.

Commentary: FOIA Search Survey

FOIA Commentary (2017-2023)Allan BlutsteinComment

Last week, the National Security Archive (NSA) and the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) published the results and analysis of their survey of agency FOIA personnel and requesters about the search process.  The staff of FOIA Advisor -- Allan Blutstein, Kevin Schmidt, and Ryan Mulvey -- weighs in.

A.  A useful survey and I largely agree with NSA and POGO's conclusions.  If I were to quibble about anything, it would be with the following paragraph:

Unfortunately, statistics show extremely large percentage of FOIA requests (over 16 percent) are denied because an agency claims that “no responsive records were found.”  But many of these “no responsive document” denials are in fact the result of improper or poorly conducted searches.  Administrative appeals often result in a second, more thorough search that finds the documents requested.

Based on my experience as both agency counsel and a requester, I do not believe that the percentage of no-record responses is "extremely large."  And I would say that "some," not "many" of those responses are due to inadequate searches. Similarly, I would say that appeals "sometimes," not "often," result in the discovery of additional requested records.  In the absence of hard facts, of course, we'll have to agree to disagree about which adjectives are more appropriate.    

R.  One of the shortcomings of the survey is its small sample size: 57 responses, of which only 30 were from processors.  Considering the bulk of the analysis centers on what agencies are doing, I'd have liked to see more input from the government.  Otherwise, I agree that the conclusions are generally good.  

The lack of government-wide guidance on how, precisely, an agency should conduct a search is one source of a lot of the identified problems.  But that's probably unavoidable so long as agencies have varied infrastructures.  Consider the IRS.  In my experience, the IRS tries to avoid searching e-mail, for example, because it doesn't allow employees to self-search (at least, that's what IRS FOIA officers have told me).  The alternative approach requires a lot of time and labor investment.  The IRS also complains that it lacks modern hardware and software.  Such technological limitations have a real impact on how the FOIA is implemented, especially in an increasingly high-tech world.

As for the "no records" issue, agencies regularly tell me that they don't have any responsive records.  I'm sure that many of these responses reflect a good faith search.  A few of them, however, may be based on a reluctance to deal with complex or politically sensitive requests.  That many agencies rely on components or employees to actually carry out a search only facilitates such poor efforts in a limited number of cases.  I've also found it common for an agency to tell me that it has a large number of potentially responsive records, but then produce hardly anything once the review process is done.  Maybe the agency is erring on the side of being over-inclusive during the search process, but that just raises a different type of inefficiency.  Finally, on a related note, I imagine a small number of requests are rejected as invalid or imperfect because an agency simply considers it difficult, as a practical matter, to conduct a search.  I realize, though, that there may be a fine line between a complex request that requires a difficult search and an "unreasonably burdensome" request.

Here's one recommendation that wasn't in the survey: requesters and agencies should do a better job at talking to one another.  Communication allows everybody to clarify the scope of the request, to identify expectations, and to understand an agency's limitations.

K.  Considering the lack of uniform guidance on searches, a 16 percent "no responsive records" doesn't seem high to me either. That said, I think when you include that 16 percent with those instances where an agency gives you a couple of emails or documents at you just to close the request, that's where the "extremely large" would be found.

If you look at the survey responses to FOIA software, the lack of technology use for conducting searches is pretty stunning with 25 percent not using any software and 7 percent "not sure."  I'm not sure which technology is best (the survey lists the software used, like FOIAOnline), but I'd wager that solving the technological limitations within agencies would be the best way to improve FOIA for processors and requesters. 

FOIA News: OPEN Government Data Act reintroduced in Congress

FOIA News (2015-2023)Ryan MulveyComment

Bill to make federal data open, machine-readable reintroduced in both chambers

Samantha Ehlinger, FedScoop, Mar. 30, 2017

A bipartisan and bicameral group of lawmakers reintroduced Wednesday the OPEN Government Data Act — a bill that passed the Senate last year but stalled in the House.

The bill, which would set a presumption that federal data should be published online in a machine-readable format, has a broad support from open data advocates, government spending watchdogs and the technology industry.

“There’s nothing especially useful about a spreadsheet trapped in a locked box but that’s basically how things work now,” said Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., in a statement. “We need to make sure that appropriate and publicly available data is easily accessible to folks who can put it to work.”

Read more here.

FOIA News: DOJ Issues Glomar Response with Exemptions 6 and 7(C)

FOIA News (2015-2023)Ryan MulveyComment

DOJ Refuses FOIA Request On Emails, Claiming 'Personal Privacy'

Mike Masnick, Tech Dirt, Apr. 4, 2017

We've talked in the past about how government FOIA officers seem to really love exemption b(5) which covers "inter-agency or intra-agency memorandum or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency." But, in my experience, I've seen a ton of the next exemption: the b(6) exemption, often called the "privacy exemption." Officially, the law (5 USC 552(b)(6)), says only that "personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."

That seems like a perfectly reasonable exemption. Even if it is part of a government discussion, we don't want the government revealing medical files or something of a similar nature. But, over the years, this has gotten abused in weird ways, such as the time a FOIA officer used b(6) to redact Beyonce's name in a FOIA request about Beyonce. Really.

However, now I think we've seen the b(6) exemption to end all b(6) exemptions. This came to investigative reporter David Sirota, who filed a FOIA request to find out about emails between Makan Delrahim and employees of the DOJ's antitrust division. This is potentially useful info, because Delrahim was just nominated to head that very division. But, more importantly, Delrahim has been a powerful lobbyist for Anthem who tried to help it get its merger with Cigna approved -- an effort that just recently failed in court, but may have another chance with Delrahim in a position of power.

Read more here.

FOIA News: National Archives to White House - Save all Trump tweets

FOIA News (2015-2023)Ryan MulveyComment

(NB: While this article does not deal with the FOIA, the preservation of presidential records, including those created on an electronic medium such as Twitter, is important.  There is also a lesson here: many agencies could improve their procedures and policies for saving text and instant messages for later disclosure under the FOIA.)

National Archives to White House: Save all Trump Tweets

Stephen Braun, Assoc. Press, Apr. 3, 2017

WASHINGTON (AP) — The National Archives and Records Administration has told the White House to keep each of President Donald Trump's tweets, even those he deletes or corrects, and the White House has agreed.

The head of the archives, David S. Ferriero, told two Democratic senators in a letter last week that the White House has assured him it's saving all Trump's Twitter blasts.

The archives contacted the White House about the matter because the Presidential Records Act requires such correspondence to be preserved for history. Ferriero did not say when the agency contacted White House officials to remind them about the records requirement, but officials briefed the White House counsel's office about the law on Feb. 2, according to the archivist's letter to Sens. Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Tom Carper of Delaware.

Read more here.