Case Detail
| Case Title | JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | District of Columbia | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Washington, DC | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 1:2017cv01283 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2017-06-29 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | Open | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Judge Emmet G. Sullivan | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Description | Judicial Watch submitted a FOIA request to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for records concerning communications between NOAA scientist Thomas Karl and Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy John Holdren. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request, but after hearing nothing further from the agency, Judicial Watch filed suit. Complaint issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Adequacy - Search, Litigation - Vaughn index, Litigation - Attorney's fees | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Complaint attachment 3 Complaint attachment 4 Opinion/Order [21] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Emmet Sullivan has become the second district court judge in the D.C. Circuit to reject an agency's Exemption 5 (privileges) claims because the agency had not shown that it considered whether or not disclosure would cause foreseeable harm under the standard added by the 2016 amendments. In a case brought by Judicial Watch against the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for communications between Thomas Karl, a NOAA scientist, and John Holden, who served as director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy during the Obama administration, the agency disclosed 900 pages of emails, a large portion of which were partially redacted under Exemption 5. By the time Sullivan ruled, Judicial Watch was contesting only 48 pages. Judicial Watch argued that NOAA had failed to show the existence of any foreseeable harm from disclosing the disputed pages. Sullivan pointed out that Judge Amit Mehta was the only other D.C. Circuit district court judge to consider the foreseeable harm standard in Rosenberg v. Dept of Defense, 342 F. Supp. 3d 62 (D.D.C. 2018). Sullivan observed that in Rosenberg Mehta had found that the agency "had failed to explain how the disclosures of information withheld under Exemption 5 would harm the agency's deliberative process. The court noted that the foreseeable harm requirement does not go 'so far as to require the government to identify harm likely to result from disclosure of each of its Exemption 5 withholdings' but the government at least needed to do more than 'perfunctorily state that disclosure of all the withheld information â€" regardless of category or substance â€" would jeopardize the free exchange of information.'" Finding Rosenberg persuasive, Sullivan noted that "the text and purpose of the Act both support a heightened standard for an agency's withholdings under Exemption 5. The text of the Act states an agency may only withhold information if 'the agency reasonably foresees that disclosure would harm an interest protected by [a FOIA] exemption.' In other words, even if an exemption applies, an agency must release the document unless doing so would reasonably harm an exemption-protected interest. The purpose of the [2016 amendments were] to establish a 'presumption of openness,' and its passing was based on the recognition that 'from the beginning, agencies have taken advantage of these exemptions to withhold any information that might technically fit.' To that end, Congress sought to require an agency to 'first determine whether [it] could reasonably foresee an actual harm' before the agency claims an exemption. Furthermore, an 'inquiry into whether an agency has reasonably foreseen a specific, identifiable har that would be caused by a disclosure would require the ability to articulate both the nature of the harm and the link between the specified harm and specific information contained in the material withheld.'" NOAA had submitted two affidavits supporting its use of Exemption 5 by telling Sullivan that disclosure would chill candid discussions. Sullivan noted that "these general explanations of the possibility of a 'chilling effect' fall short of articulating 'a link between the specified harm and specific information contained in the material withheld.'" He observed that "if the mere possibility that disclosure discourages a frank and open dialogue was enough for the exemption to apply, then Exemption 5 would apply whenever the deliberative process privilege was invoked regardless of whether disclosure of the information would harm an interest protected by the exemption." Sullivan explained that "however, in enacting the legislation, Congress intended that the technical application of an exemption was not sufficient without a showing that disclosure also harmed an interest the exemption sought to protect in the first place." He observed that "the question is not whether disclosure could chill speech, but rather if it is reasonably foreseeable that it will chill speech and, if so, what is the link between this harm and the specific information contained in the material withheld." Sullivan told the agency it could provide supplemental affidavits to attempt to satisfy the foreseeable harm standard.
Issues: Exemption 5 - Privileges | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
