Case Detail
| Case Title | Harper v. Department of the Army Huntington District, Corps of Engineers | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | Southern District of Ohio | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Columbus | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 2:2014cv00986 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2014-07-25 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2015-09-01 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | Leatra Harper | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Description | Leatra Harper, a citizen advocate working with the Fresh Water Accountability Project, submitted a FOIA request to the Huntington District Office of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for records concerning the agency's involvement in leasing mineral rights to the Muskingham Watershed Conservancy District for use in fracking operations. The agency told Harper that it was withholding the majority of the 200 responsive pages under Exemption 5 (privileges). Harper appealed the agency's decision, which was upheld. She then filed suit. Complaint issues: Exemption 5 - Privileges | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | Department of the Army Huntington District, Corps of Engineers | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Appeal | Sixth Circuit 15-4047 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Complaint attachment 3 Complaint attachment 4 Complaint attachment 5 Complaint attachment 6 Opinion/Order [13] Opinion/Order [25] FOIA Project Annotation: A federal court in Ohio has ruled that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers properly withheld 200 pages of records pertaining to discussions between the agency's Huntington office and the State of Ohio's Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District concerning potential consequences of hydrofracking on dam and levee safety under Exemption 5 (deliberative process privilege). Leatra Harper, representing a local coalition called Southeast Ohio Alliance to Save Our Water, requested records concerning the decision that a full 216 study was not required as the result of proposed water withdrawals from the MWCD as a result of potential hydrofracking activities. When the Corps of Engineers withheld many of the records under Exemption 5, the coalition filed suit. The coalition argued that because MWCD might take an adversarial position to that of the Corps of Engineers the records did not qualify as privileged. But the court concluded the federal and state agencies' interests were aligned for the purposes of claiming the deliberative process privilege. The court noted that "the USACE and the MWCD are jointly responsible for the administration of the Muskingum Watershed. The USACE, the federal agency charged with formulating national policy regarding the impact of hydrofracking on dam and levee safety, has consulted with MWCD in connection with terms governing oil and gas exploration leases on land deeded to MWCD and, as part of the process of formulating that national policy, the federal agency relies on information generated by MWCD in connection with its leases." The coalition argued that granting oil and gas exploration leases might cause the land to revert back to the United States. The court pointed out that "plaintiff's contentions with regard to the 'reverter clause' are insufficient to establish that the USACE and MWCD occupy adversarial positions such as to foreclose invocation of the inter- or intra-agency exemption under FOIA. Although a truly adversarial relationship may render the exemption inapplicable, plaintiff has offered no evidence that the United States has ever sought to invoke the 'reverter clause' or has otherwise expressed any opinion that the activities of MWCD over the years have been inconsistent with the purposes for which property was deeded to MWCD." The court then found the records were both predecisional and deliberative. The court observed that the agency's "assertions are sufficient to establish that the withheld documents relate to the USACE's formulation of national policy pertaining to the effect of hydrofracking on dam safety, a process that remaining on-going."
Issues: Exemption 5 - Consultant privilege | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
