Case Detail
| Case Title | PacifiCorp v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | District of Colorado | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Denver | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 1:2013cv02187 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2013-08-15 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2015-07-02 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Judge Raymond P. Moore | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | PacifiCorp | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Description | PacifiCorp, an electric utility company located in Portland, OR, filed two FOIA requests with EPA Region 8 in Denver for records pertaining to Wyoming's regional haze implementation plan, which required EPA approval. To compel EPA to act, environmental groups filed suit in Colorado, which secured a consent order setting a series of deadlines for EPA. EPA issued a proposed rule and PacifiCorp's requests were primarily to provide it with information so it could submit public comments on the rule. The EPA withheld most of the documents responsive to both requests under Exemption 5(privileges). PacifiCorp appealed both denials, but neither appeal had been resolved by the time PacifiCorp filed suit. Complaint issues: adequacy of search, Exemption 5, deliberative process privilege, attorney-client privilege, attorney work-product privilege, irreparable harm, attorney's fees | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Complaint attachment 3 Complaint attachment 4 Complaint attachment 5 Complaint attachment 6 Complaint attachment 7 Complaint attachment 8 Complaint attachment 9 Complaint attachment 10 Complaint attachment 11 Complaint attachment 12 Complaint attachment 13 Opinion/Order [12] Opinion/Order [30] Opinion/Order [31] Opinion/Order [33] FOIA Project Annotation: A federal court in Colorado has ruled that while PacifiCorp has shown that the EPA has neither justified its search for records concerning regional haze requirements relevant to an ongoing rulemaking nor that Exemption 5 (privileges) applies to portions of the records, the company has not shown that it would suffer irreparable harm from the agency's inability to process and disclose its FOIA requests in time for the company to provide further public comments. After the EPA provided a cursory response to PacifiCorp's requests and failed to respond to the company's administrative appeals, PacifiCorp filed suit asking for a preliminary injunction requiring the agency to respond to its request in time for it to make further public comments on the proposed rule. Noting that injunctive relief was disfavored by the Tenth Circuit, the court nonetheless assessed whether PacifiCorp had established its right to injunctive relief. Because PacifiCorp provided evidence that the EPA had used personal email accounts in corresponding with interested parties, the court noted that "through its submission of copies of personal e-mail communications by at least one of Defendant's officials with a representative of Environmental Defense Fund, the Plaintiff has shown a substantial likelihood of success in establishing that the scope of Defendant's search was insufficient to constitute a complete and full response to Plaintiff's requests." The agency contended that "Plaintiff's FOIA requests, by their own terms, relate to matters that are currently being litigated by Defendant." But the court pointed out that "while this may be true, this does not mean that everything 'related' is privileged and therefore exempt." The court rejected the agency's claim that it was not required to provide a Vaughn index except in response to a summary judgment motion. Instead, the court observed that "the purpose of providing a Vaughn index, or something equivalent, is to permit the Court to determine whether a sufficient factual basis exists to support the agency's refusal to disclose the information at issue. Such determination, however, is at issue in ruling on not only a motion for summary judgment but also a motion for preliminary injunction. While the cases relied on by the parties generally addressed a Vaughn index in the context of motions for summary judgment, there is no controlling decision which limits its application to such context and the Court finds the application is not so limited." But turning to the issue of irreparable harm, the court indicated that "Plaintiff has not shown that an adequate search would produce any additional relevant documents, or that the production of any currently withheld non-privileged document would provide useful information to support additional public comments regarding the final rule or for inclusion in the administrative record for review. At this juncture, Plaintiff can only speculate that some relevant, useful information may have been withheld, or not located and produced." The court was surprised by the agency's forthright admission that it routinely failed to respond to requests on time. The court noted that "Defendant candidly and inexplicably acknowledges it did not, and does not, comply with the deadlines�"a violation of its statutory duties�"yet questions why Plaintiff would need the requested information on a 'rushed timeline' before the November 21, 2013 final rule deadline. While Defendant's failure to comply with its obligations cannot be sanctioned, in order to obtain the extraordinary relief Plaintiff seeks it must nonetheless meet the requirements for granting such relief."
Opinion/Order [50]Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit Opinion/Order [57] Opinion/Order [60] FOIA Project Annotation: A federal court in Colorado has ruled that, while the EPA's initial search for records concerning litigation brought by WildEarth Guardians concerning the agency's failure to act to implement hazing requirements in Wyoming was inadequate, its subsequent search cured those deficiencies. The court also agreed with the agency that much of the information was protected by Exemption 5 (privileges), but found the agency had failed to explain why it did not conduct a segregability review for records claimed under the attorney work-product privilege. The case involved a request by PacifiCorp, a utility seeking information to use to comment in an agency rulemaking. The agency asked 10 employees involved in the WildEarth Guardians litigation to search their email for responsive records. That search produced more than 200 records, of which 166 documents were withheld under the deliberative process, attorney-client, and attorney work-product privileges. In response to the utility's second FOIA request, the agency asked six employees to search their email, a search that resulted in 54 documents, 46 of which were withheld as privileged. Although those email searches yielded the names of 23 other employees who might have responsive documents, their files were not searched until a second review was conducted. The agency found another 230 documents, narrowed the number of responsive documents to 148, disclosing 53 records entirely, 95 records in part, and withholding the rest. The court noted the EPA's first search was clearly inadequate, pointing out that "the EPA provided no information as to the search terms used or they type of search performed." The court added that "the responsive documents revealed an additional 23 employees may have responsive information but they were not asked to conduct a search. Under the facts and circumstances here, any argument by the EPA that such employees were not asked because it was unaware of their involvement would be futile. A simple review of the initial responsive documents would have revealed the need to expand the inquiry." However, the court then found that the agency's second search had encompassed all responsive records. As to documents claimed to be privileged, PacifiCorp argued that any factual material had to be disclosed. Relying on Fine v. Dept of Energy, 830 F. Supp. 570 (D.N.M. 1993), the court indicated that under the work-product privilege "purely factual material must be disclosed." As a result, the court found the agency's claims unsubstantiated, noting that "the Vaughn index, however, showed, at best. . .that the EPA deemed all factual material as intertwined with the attorney's mental processes and that no attempted redaction occurred." Except for one document, the court approved of the agency's redactions under the attorney-client privilege. As to that document, the court observed that "the description of the information shows it was a communication between nonlawyers, but the 'cc'd' included an attorney. The fact that an attorney was copied on a communication, without more, is insufficient to establish the communication is covered by the attorney-client privilege." The court also approved of the agency's deliberative process privilege claims, noting that "the index describes the documents individually, identifying the type of document; the author; the recipients or persons involved; and the justification for claiming the exemption and what was redacted."
Opinion/Order [68]Issues: Exemption 5 - Privileges, Adequacy - Search FOIA Project Annotation: A federal court in Colorado has ruled that PacifiCorp, an electric utility company providing electricity in Wyoming and five other states, substantially prevailed in its FOIA suit against the EPA, but because the litigation was motivated primarily by PacifiCorp's commercial interests, it is not entitled to attorney's fees. PacifiCorp filed suit after the agency failed to respond to its request for records pertaining to a regional haze implementation plan for Wyoming. PacifiCorp had made the request to obtain information for submitting public comments. Although the court granted PacifiCorp most of the relief it requested, it found the company was not entitled to attorney's fees. The court noted that "PacifiCorp's argument that it derived no commercial benefit from the FOIA requests is unavailing as such bare statements, without more, do not support such a conclusion. . .While the issue of the EPA's rulemaking concerning the haze program for Wyoming may affect all entities thereby regulated and the public in general, the evidence shows that is not what precipitated this litigation." PacifiCorp argued that its request had benefitted the public by providing for a more robust public debate. But the court pointed out that "while there is evidence that PacifiCorp submitted comments after it received the EPA's initial responsive documents, there is no evidence that such comments disseminated any information received." The court found that the agency's claim that it was not required to disclose factual material that qualified as attorney work product, while not settled in the Tenth Circuit, was not unreasonable.
Opinion/Order [69]Issues: Litigation - Attorney's fees - Entitlement - Commercial interest | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
