FOIA Advisor

FOIA News: Another Court Orders State Dept to Expedite Production

FOIA News (2015-2024)Ryan MulveyComment

Court Orders State Department to Expedite Delivery of Clinton Emails

Tom Fitton, Newsmax, Jan. 17, 2018

The Deep State bureaucracies in Washington give awful life to the cliché that "the wheels of justice turn slowly." This is the case with the State Department and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s e-mails.

Last year, the FBI uncovered 72,000 pages of documents that Clinton attempted to delete or did not otherwise disclose. The State Department had been processing these documents at a rate that would have required us and the American people to wait until at least 2020 to see them.

Now I’m pleased to tell you that a federal court judge has ordered the State Department to speed up the processing and production of these emails. U.S. District Court Judge James E. Boasberg ordered State to finish processing the remaining documents by Sept. 28, 2018.

Read more here.

FOIA News: SEC Proposed FOIA Regs Come Under Fire

FOIA News (2015-2024)Ryan MulveyComment

SEC Proposes To Rewrite The FOIA

Keith Paul Bishop, JDSupra, Jan. 16, 2018

For more than a half century, the Freedom of Information Act (aka FOIA) grants any person a legally enforcable right to obtain access to federal agency records (with certain exceptions). The FOIA requires federal agencies to promulgate regulations, "specifying the schedule of fees applicable to the processing of requests"  and "establishing procedures and guidelines for determining when such fees should be waived or reduced". 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(i).  

Just before Christmas last, the Securities and Exchange Commission proposed amendments to its FOIA rules to "(1) reflect changes required by the FOIA . . . and (2) clarify, update, and streamline the language of several procedural provisions".  Among other things, the SEC is proposing to add and clarify certain fee related definitions.  These changes may seem mundane, but the SEC's proposed definitions would add limitations not found in the FOIA itself.

Read more here.

Q&A: Overcoming Exemption One "Glomarization"

Q&A (2015-2024)Ryan MulveyComment

Q.  What is the best process for challenging a refusal by the CIA to confirm or deny the existence of records under Section 3.6(a) of Executive Order 13526?

A.  The type of determination to which you are referring is known as a “Glomar response” or “Glomarization.”  Although an agency can issue a Glomar response based on different FOIA exemptions, the relevant one in your case is Exemption One, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1).

Exemption One permits an agency to withhold information “specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy.”  Such information must not only qualify for classification but “in fact [be] properly classified.”  Executive Order 13526 sets forth the current standards and procedures for national security classification.  It identifies both the substantive categories of information that can be classified (e.g., military plans) and the procedural requirements that an agency must satisfy to effect classification.

Executive Order 13526 also provides non-disclosure protection for the fact of the existence of records.  Under Section 3.6(a), “[a]n agency may refuse to confirm or deny the existence or nonexistence of requested records whenever the fact of their existence or nonexistence is itself classified under this order or its predecessors.”  On a “mosaic” or “compilation” theory, this protection can even extend to sets of non-classified records that implicate national security concerns when considered in the aggregate.

FOIA requesters usually rely on two methods to overcome an Exemption One Glomar response.  First, while in litigation, a requester can challenge the affidavit providing the basis for an agency’s refusal to confirm or deny the existence of records.  An affidavit may lack specificity or vital details, or it may contradict other available evidence regarding the existence of the requested records.  There could be an independent basis to prove bad faith on the part of the government in handling the FOIA request or records at issue.  Challenging an agency affidavit is difficult.  Courts tend to defer to agencies in the FOIA context, and deference to agency expertise in national security cases is even stronger.

A requester can also challenge a Glomar response based on “waiver”—that is, by proving that the fact of the existence of records is already in the public domain and, moreover, has been “officially acknowledged.”  In the D.C. Circuit, "official acknowledgement" means that the requested records (or, in this case, the fact of those records' existence) are (1) as “specific” as those previously released, (2) “match” the information previously disclosed, and (3) were disclosed in an “official and documented” manner.  To illustrate: in National Security Archive v. Central Intelligence Agency, a court accepted a waiver argument when a requester sought biographies on seven former Eastern European heads of state and the CIA had already officially acknowledged that it kept biographies on all “heads of state.”  Widespread media coverage about the existence of records will be insufficient.  Similarly, general comments from a public official—even in testimony before Congress—may not satisfy the standard.

FOIA News: Surge in New FOIA Litigation in Trump's First Year

FOIA News (2015-2024)Ryan MulveyComment

FOIA Lawsuits Surge in Trump Administration's First Year

The FOIA Project, Jan. 16, 2018

Since the new administration took office at the end of January 2017, there has been a sharp jump in the number of lawsuits filed by individuals and organizations seeking court orders to obtain federal government records. Suits brought by the news media and nonprofit advocacy organizations have fueled a significant part of this rise. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), requesters can file suit when information they are seeking is withheld and they have exhausted administrative appeals, or when the agency fails to even respond in a timely manner.

Lawsuits this past fiscal year rose an astonishing 26 percent, and are continuing to climb. FOIA court cases are now up over 70 percent from just five years ago.

Read more here.

Court opinion issued Jan. 12, 2018

Court Opinions (2015-2024)Allan BlutsteinComment

Ctr. for Pub. Integrity v. U.S. Dep't of Energy (D.D.C) -- concluding on motion for renewed summary judgment that: (1) agency properly relied on Exemption 4 to withhold attorney-client privileged communications between company and its legal counsel, except those portions that agency officially disclosed through public releases; and (2) agency provided sufficient justification for redacting identifying information of agency and company personnel under Exemption 7(C), except for names that agency officially acknowledged through FOIA disclosures.

Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.

Court opinions issued Jan. 11, 2018

Court Opinions (2015-2024)Allan BlutsteinComment

Judicial Watch v. U.S. Dep't of State (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) records concerning agency's use of certain electronic devices during Secretary Clinton's tenure did not meet asserted "government misconduct" exception to deliberative process privilege; and (2) agency needed to clarify whether it had reviewed and released in full emails recovered by FBI in October 2016.  

Kanaya v. Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearm & Explosives (D.D.C.) -- dismissing case because ATF averred that it never received plaintiff's request before lawsuit and plaintiff was unable to show that he mailed the request to an address associated with ATF. 

Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.

Q&A: FOIA to government contractor?

Q&A (2015-2024)Allan BlutsteinComment

Q.  Can I submit a FOIA request to a company (e.g., Pratt & Whitney) that implements major contracts with the government?  I am interested in the company's data concerning employee promotion statistics and the associated merit percentage increases.

A.   Submit you may, but you should not expect to receive the records that you have identified.  The federal FOIA applies to government agencies only.  Private companies that decide to contract with the federal government do not become federal agencies for FOIA purposes.  The same holds true under most state public disclosure laws with which I am familiar.  You may be able to obtain certain contractual records directly from the government agency, of course, but I doubt such information will include the company's promotion and pay information.

Court opinions issued Jan. 10, 2018

Court Opinions (2015-2024)Allan BlutsteinComment

Cornucopia Inst. v. Agric. Mktg. Serv. (D.D.C.) -- ruling that plaintiff was eligible and entitled to attorney's fees and costs, but reducing award from $41,965.73 sought by plaintiff to $12,145.83 due to excessive charges. 

Brennan Ctr. for Justice v. U.S. Dep't of State (S.D.N.Y.) -- granting plaintiff's motion to expedite production of travel ban records and Vaughn Index because agency had not released a single record in six months and it failed to show that meeting new scheduled would be impractical.  

Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.

FOIA News: State Dep't Ordered to Expedite Travel Ban FOIA Request

FOIA News (2015-2024)Allan BlutsteinComment

Judge Backs Expedited Production of Trump Travel Ban FOIA

U.S. District Court Judge Paul Gardephe said the government's had six months to produce the material and offered no compelling reason why the documents shouldn't be produced quickly.

By Colby Hamilton, NY Law J., Jan 10, 2018

The U.S. State Department was ordered to expeditiously comply with a Freedom of Information Act request submitted by the Brennan Center for Justice for documents related to the Trump administration’s first two travel bans issued last year.

In his order issued Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Paul Gardephe of the Southern District of New York granted plaintiffs motion to expedite the production of documents requested from the government six months ago. State officials at some point had approved a Brennan Center request for expedited processing.

“It has now been nearly six months since Plaintiff’s FOIA request was submitted, and nothing has been produced. Nor is there any schedule for production,” Gardephe said. “Accordingly, the presumption of agency delay applies.”

Read more here.