Case Detail
| Case Title | PUBLIC CITIZEN, INC. v. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | District of Columbia | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Washington, DC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 1:2007cv00409 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2007-02-28 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2007-11-06 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Judge Royce C. Lamberth | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | PUBLIC CITIZEN, INC. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Description | Public Citizen submitted a FOIA request to OMB for records concerning lists of agencies allowed to transmit legislative/budgetary materials to Congress without first submitting them to OMB for clearance. The agency denied Public Citizen's request on basis of Exemption 2 (internal practices and procedures) and Exemption 5 (privileges). Public Citizen filed an administrative appeal, which was denied. Public Citizen then filed suit. Complaint issues: Exemption 2 - Risk of circumvention, Litigation - Attorney's fees | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Opinion/Order [23] FOIA Project Annotation: Although several of FOIA's exemptions contain oblique and convoluted language, the case law has generally made their coverage reasonably clear. But for Exemption 2 (internal practices and procedures), the courts have managed to make its coverage more difficult to understand, in large part because the government has consistently tried to expand the exemption significantly beyond what its plain language can bear. Years ago, the government successfully expanded its coverage to law enforcement manuals that arguably deserved protection but didn't seem to qualify under any of the sub-sections of Exemption 7 (law enforcement records). Even though the exemption applies to records "related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency," the courts have interpreted the exemption to apply when records are predominantly internal in nature and when their disclosure could risk circumvention of a law or regulation. The Justice Department's Office of Information and Privacy developed the theory that the exemption applied to protect certain security-related information â€" such as computer systems â€" and that application was trotted out aggressively after Sept. 11 to protect an array of information â€" some of which had previously been made public â€" that could be used to aid terrorism. Two recent cases, considerably different in their factual patterns, provide illustrations of how Exemption 2 has been used recently. One case involves the first terrorism application in several years, while the second holds that the circumvention prong of the exemption can be applied to protect one agency against another. The terrorism-related case comes from Washington state and is really only the third district court decision to deal directly with Exemption 2 as a device for withholding information that could be used to aid terrorists, the other two being Living Rivers v. Bureau of Reclamation, No. 2:02-CV-644TC (D. Utah, Mar. 25, 2003), and Coastal Delivery Corp. v. Customs Service, No. 02-3838 WMB (C.D. Cal., Mar. 14, 2003). Glen Milner requested information concerning the storage of explosives by the Navy on Naval Magazine Indian Island. Milner specifically asked for information on Explosive Safety Quantity Distance analyses, which measure the effects of an explosion at varying distances and which are used to determine minimum separation distances for various quantities of explosives. The Navy analyzed requests for ESQD data on a case-by-case basis and withheld it "if a determination is made that the release might pose a serious threat of death or injury to any person." The Navy shared such data with local first responders. The Navy disclosed to Milner a number of documents, but withheld the ESQD data under Exemption 2 and Exemption 7(F) (harm to safety of any person). Milner then brought suit against the agency. Milner first argued that the agency's affidavit was inadequate under Ninth Circuit standards. Milner complained that the agency's "explanation as to why ESQD information should be withheld is inadequate because it offers only a generalized explanation, not specific to each of the withheld documents listed in the Vaughn Index." But Judge John Coughenour disagreed, noting that "the Court does not read [Ninth Circuit precedents] to require the Vaughn Index to repeat, for each and every document, [the agency's] concerns specific to ESQD arc information, where the concerns and justifications for withholding are properly the same for each document." Turning to the elements of Exemption 2, Coughenour indicated that both the Navy and Milner agreed that the ESQD data was created for predominantly internal purposes "to design, array, and construct ammunition storage facilities, and to organize ammunition operations." Coughenour observed that "that the information is also made available to local municipalities does not negate the fact that these documents are predominantly internal." Analyzing the circumvention prong, he pointed out that "the 'law' sought to be circumvented need not be defined by a particular agency regulation or statute. That the disclosure would cause the information to lose its utility is sufficient. Pointing out that "when the government interest involved is particularly weighty â€" such as where concerns about national security are justified â€" courts are more likely to defer to the agency's expertise in assessing the risk of disclosure," Coughenour said he disagreed with Milner's claim that the case was not about national security because if it were the records should have been classified. Coughenour explained that "information need not be 'secret' to implicate national security. That the Navy finds it advisable to, for example, share information with local municipalities in order to better equip first responders in the event of an emergency does not undermine the legitimacy of the Navy's risk assessment. Such a conclusion would be antithetical to any definition of the word 'security.'" Coughenour rejected Milner's assertion that because the Navy had made the ESQD information public in the past its current risk assessment could not be taken seriously. Instead, he concluded that "its release could cause the information to lose its utility in keeping people and property safe from harm in the event of an explosive incident. Second, it could provide essentially a roadmap to wreak the most havoc possible to those persons bent on causing harm, risking circumvention of the Navy's security, force protection and explosives safety efforts. To release this information would be to provide the proverbial fox a virtual map to the chicken coop." The other Exemption 2 case deals with litigation brought by Public Citizen against OMB to force the agency to disclose documents related to which agencies are permitted to bypass OMB's legislative and budgetary clearance processes. OMB ultimately disclosed a list of statutes requiring direct submission of legislative materials and statutes requiring submission of budget materials. The agency withheld other documents under Exemption 2 and Exemption 5 (deliberative process privilege). During the litigation, OMB disclosed redacted versions of 14 of the 22 documents originally withheld in full, but still asserted both exemptions covered the redacted portions. Public Citizen challenged the Exemption 2 claims by arguing that the information was not predominantly internal because it applied to other agencies. By contrast, OMB claimed that the documents "contain a description of OMB officials' interpretations of the views of certain agencies regarding legislative clearance requirements." After reviewing the records in camera, Judge Royce Lamberth agreed with the agency, noting that "the documents offer guidance to OMB officials regarding other agencies' ability to bypass presidential review of those agencies' budgetary and/or legislative recommendations. The information contained in [the documents] is plainly intended for internal use only. Further, plaintiff has presented no evidence that the documents have ever been circulated to (or relied upon by) individuals outside of the Agency." The agency's circumvention argument was essentially that other agencies could use the information to bypass OMB's authority. Public Citizen argued that the circumvention prong was not intended to apply to "agencies within the executive branch [who might be] likely to break the law if the records are released." Lamberth responded that "this Circuit does not require that the potentially circumvented agency regulation be criminally oriented. Further, the potential circumventors from whom the information is being protected need not be outside of the government." He then concluded that "the information contained in these documents would provide guidance on how to circumvent the law to agencies that do not currently possess bypass authority. . .[I]f other agencies knew OMB's beliefs concerning its views or the views of sister agencies, they could use this information to impede and frustrate legislative clearance requirements." Lamberth found the remaining documents, which were letters from OMB to other agencies discussing agencies' legislative authority to bypass OMB's review, were protected by Exemption 5. Public Citizen argued that they merely explained existing policy and were neither predecisional nor deliberative. Lamberth indicated that they were "a discussion between OMB and other agencies about the prospective relationship between OMB and those agencies vis a vis the legislative clearance process. Thus, when these correspondences took place, no decision had been made between OMB and the various agency recipients of these correspondences regarding the agencies' participation in the legislative clearance process."
Issues: Exemption 2 - Risk of circumvention | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
