Case Detail
| Case Title | Electronic Frontier Foundation v. Office of the Director of National Intelligence | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | Northern District of California | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | San Francisco | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 3:2007cv05278 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2007-10-17 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2008-03-05 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Hon. Susan Illston | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | Electronic Frontier Foundation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Description | The Electronic Frontier Foundation submitted two FOIA requests to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence for records concerning discussions the Director had with members of Congress pertaining to proposed FISA amendments. EFF also requested expedited processing. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request, but after hearing nothing further from the agency, EFF filed suit. Complaint issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Expedited processing, Litigation - Attorney's fees | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | Office of the Director of National Intelligence | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Opinion/Order [21] Opinion/Order [26] FOIA Project Annotation: Regardless of what Congress may have meant about expedited processing in the 1996 EFOIA amendments, plaintiffs have had limited success in getting courts to grant expedition in the first place and, even further, to establish that expedited processing, at a minimum, must mean a quicker response time than the 20 working days the statute provides for normal responses. As a plaintiff, EPIC pioneered the use of the preliminary injunction as a tool to force courts to recognize requesters' rights to expedited processing. Now, District Court Judge Susan Illston has granted EFF a preliminary injunction forcing the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to process the organization's FOIA request for records pertaining to communications with telecommunications carriers and members of Congress regarding pending legislation to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The agency had already granted the organization expedited processing, but had nevertheless failed to provide any responsive records. The agency had identified 250 pages of unclassified material and 65 pages of classified material. The agency told the court that it was processing the unclassified material as soon as practicable and hoped to provide an interim response by Nov. 30 and a final response by Dec. 31. EFF filed a motion for preliminary injunction to force the agency to identify all responsive records within ten days and to provide a Vaughn index within ten days after that. Illston first found that she had the authority to grant a preliminary injunction in an FOIA case. She then turned to the question needing resolution â€" "whether defendant is actually processing the request 'as soon as practicable.'" While EFF relied on EPIC v. Dept of Justice, 416 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2006), arguing that "where an agency fails to comply with the twenty-day deadline applicable to a standard FOIA request, the agency 'presumptively also fails to process an expedited request "as soon as practicable."' While the agency may rebut the presumption by showing that the twenty-day time period is 'truly not practicable,' courts are not required simply to 'take at face value an agency's determination that more time is necessary.'" The agency, by contrast, argued that "the expedited processing provision of FOIA is merely an ordering mechanism, allowing certain FOIA requests to jump to the front of the agency's processing queue and avoid the customary 'first-in, first out' processing practice. After that happens, defendant asserts that 'practicability' is the only standard that governs how quickly the request can be processed. Defendant further contends that the provision requiring an agency response within twenty working days for a non-expedited request 'has no bearing on when expedited processing must be completed.' Rather, it argues that 'a court may grant an extension to allow the agency to finish its search and processing where the agency has been unable to meet the deadline because of exceptional circumstances.'" Noting that the agency had not asked for an extension, Illston pointed out that "defendant's explanation for its delay does not appear to demonstrate the existence of 'exceptional circumstances.' Defendant contends that what is practicable will depend on factors including the size and scope of the request, the level of detail involved, the number of offices with responsive documents, other agencies that must be consulted, as well as the existence of classified materials. Defendant asserts that its review includes page-by-page and line-by-line review of the documents to determine which, if any, FOIA exemptions may apply. They also assert that classified materials require extra scrutiny." Illston responded to that claim by noting that "these assertions appear to the Court to be generically applicable to all FOIA requests that would be received by ODNI. Defendant has offered no explanation or evidence of the existence of 'exceptional circumstances' specific to this case. Furthermore, the agency's description of its processing methods in this case â€" which apparently are assigned to a single agent â€" appear to be wholly inadequate to the task of handling an expedited request, let alone a standard request, on the timely basis required by Congress. While defendant notes that it has a small FOIA staff, that argument is properly directed at Congress, not to the courts." EFF claimed that failure to grant its expedition request would harm its ability to participate in a timely fashion in the debate over FISA. The agency said that argument was "pure speculation" and argued that "plaintiff has not established that its request will produce any responsive, non-exempt documents that will contribute to the debate" and added that "the debate over that law has been going on for many years, and [] any harm would not be 'irreparable' because 'legislation is always subject to further amendment by Congress.'" Rejecting the agency's argument, Illston observed that "as another court in this district found [in Gerstein v. CIA, 2006 WL 3462659 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2006)], irreparable harm can exist in FOIA cases such as this because ongoing public and congressional debates about issues of vital national importance 'cannot be restarted or wound back.'" She indicated that "plaintiff seeks information from defendant specifically so plaintiff, Congress, and the public may participate in the debate over the pending legislation on an informed basis. Accordingly, the Court finds that plaintiff has shown the likelihood of irreparable injury." Illston then pointed out that granting the injunction would not be overly burdensome to the agency. She explained that "the relief [EFF] seeks is nothing more than the expedited treatment to which defendant concedes the plaintiff is entitled. Defendant makes no argument that it would be burdened by complying with the law, except to the extent that it may be required to readjust its internal priorities. . . [A]ny complaints about the burdens of complying with the law are best addressed to Congress, not the courts. Accordingly, the Court finds that there is no undue burden here that would militate against issuing a preliminary injunction." Finding that EFF's request should be expedited more promptly, Illston observed that "if defendant is truly concerned about achieving the delicate balance required by Congress, it should consider assigning more than one agent to the processing of plaintiff's requests." She concluded that there was no present need for a Vaughn index and told the agency to make an initial response to EFF's request no later than Nov. 30 and to provide a final response no later than Dec. 10.
Opinion/Order [34]Issues: Litigation - Jurisdiction - Injunction Opinion/Order [39] Opinion/Order [45] Opinion/Order [46] Opinion/Order [63] Opinion/Order [64] FOIA Project Annotation: A federal court in California has ruled that EFF is entitled to $52,000 in attorney's fees for securing a preliminary injunction requiring the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to speed up its response concerning the agency's communications with telecommunications companies regarding pending legislation to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The agency admitted that EFF was eligible for fees since it had substantially prevailed but argued that it was not entitled to them. The agency argued the public benefit of disclosure was minimal, but the court noted that "at least three media outlets reported on the documents." Rejecting the agency's argument that it would have disclosed the records within 21 days anyway, the court observed that "defendant had not proposed a processing date until plaintiff filed its original motion, and defendant was under no obligation to produce anything by a set date until the Court ordered a preliminary injunction." The agency also argued EFF had a commercial interest in the records because it was representing individuals suing telecommunications carriers. But the court pointed out that "plaintiff represents clients or classes of clients, not itself. Thus, plaintiff is neither seeking damages for itself, nor profiting commercially in such cases. In fact, as a nonprofit organization, plaintiff is the sort of requester that Congress intended to recover attorney's fees under FOIA." The court explained that "the Court also required defendant to process plaintiff's request twenty-one days sooner than defendant had proposed, thus further indicating that defendant had failed to establish a reasonable basis for its refusal to release the documents earlier." The court then found that EFF had charged reasonable market rates for attorneys in the San Francisco area. However, the court concluded that some of the hours claimed by EFF were excessive and reduced its award accordingly.
Issues: Litigation - Attorney's fees - Entitlement - Public benefit | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
