Case Detail
| Case Title | AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW AND JUSTICE v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | District of Columbia | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Washington, DC | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 1:2016cv02516 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2016-12-26 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2020-03-16 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Judge James E. Boasberg | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW AND JUSTICE | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Description | The American Center for Law and Justice submitted a FOIA request to the Department of State for records concerning any grants of funds to OneVoice Israel and OneVoice Palestine for use in campaigning against Benjamin Netanyahu in the 2015 Israeli elections. ACLJ requested communications involving a large number of named individuals. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request, denied ACLJ's request for expedited processing and granted its request for a fee waiver. After hearing nothing further from the agency, ACLJ filed suit. Complaint issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Adequacy - Search, Litigation - Vaughn index, Litigation - Attorney's fees | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Complaint attachment 3 Complaint attachment 4 Complaint attachment 5 Complaint attachment 6 Opinion/Order [21] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge James Boasberg has ruled that although the Department of State routinely misses the statutory deadline for responding to FOIA requests, its failure to respond on time does not constitute a pattern or practice that can be remedied under FOIA. The American Center for Law and Justice filed a FOIA request for records of any grants provided to OneVoice Israel and OneVoice Palestine, which the ACLJ alleged was primarily focused on defeating Benjamin Netanyahu. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request, but after the agency failed to respond within five months, ACLJ filed suit, claiming the agency "has a reputation for flaunting and disregarding its public accountability and FOIA obligations." ACLJ indicated that it had been forced to file four lawsuits against the Department in six months. Boasberg explained that "in a nutshell, ACLJ posits that transparency repeatedly delayed has become a practice of transparency denied." But he noted that "in theory, that might be so. But the pleadings here do not give rise to a reasonable inference that the State Department subscribes to any policy or practice of dragging its feet on FOIA requests." Boasberg pointed out that "to state a policy-or-practice claim, a plaintiff must plausibly allege 'that the agency has adopted, endorsed, or implemented some policy or practice that constitutes an ongoing failure to abide by the terms of the FOIA.'" Boasberg rejected ACLJ's implication that State's failure to routinely respond to requests within the statutory deadline was sufficient to establish a pattern or practice violation. Instead, he noted that "while tardiness would violate FOIA, it only become actionable when 'some policy or practice' also undergirds it." He observed that "to the extent that ACLJ seeks to invoke some formal or informal agency decision that FOIA's twenty-day limit simply will not apply, its Complaint does not adequately capture that theory. Nowhere does Plaintiff actually articulate some agency-wide 'intent' to delay, some 'determination' that State would pass over the Act's time limits, or even that Defendant has taken some informal stance that across-the-board delay is the new operating procedure." He observed that "to set forth a plausible case, the organization must at the very least string together a coherent narrative and not merely speculate that the government may have unlawful internal workings." Boasberg suggested that ACLJ was contending that State's letter acknowledging receipt of a request and assigning a case number was deliberately misleading. He indicated that "ACLJ does not assert that these letters were somehow shams and that State is instead buying time. . .Plaintiff's only objection seems to be that this mere acknowledgment letter is not the punctual substantive response that it seeks. This is true. But unless ACLJ can show that sending out receipt letters that comply with FOIA is somehow tantamount to violating the Act�"whether it be by causing delay or something else�"its attack on this aspect of the agency-disclosure process falls flat." ACLJ also faulted State for forcing requesters to sue. But Boasberg explained that "although individuals may choose to sue following agency inaction, once again, Plaintiff does express in its Complaint that State's policy or practice is to force lawsuits." He added that "a plausible complaint would need to articulate, beyond the fact that requestors choose to sue when faced with (admittedly) frustrating delays, that the State Department itself has a policy or practice of forcing lawsuits."
Opinion/Order [27]Issues: Litigation - Jurisdiction - Failure to State a Claim FOIA Project Annotation: Judge James Boasberg has resurrected a policy and practice filed by the American Center for Law and Justice against the State Department after finding ACLJ's amended complaint sufficiently articulates a policy �" requiring requesters to sue in order to force the agency to respond to their request �" to allow its claim to survive the agency's motion to dismiss. ACLJ's first policy and practice claim argued that the agency intentionally failed to respond to requests. Because State routinely acknowledged receipt of requests, Boasberg found ACLJ had not articulated a coherent policy and practice claim. However, he invited ACLJ to amend its complaint after explaining the level of allegations that would need to be made. This time around, Boasberg found ACLJ had adequately refined its claim to survive the agency's motion to dismiss. Based on a 2012 OIG report criticizing the agency's FOIA operations, ACLJ argued State was on notice of its problems in timely responding to FOIA requests, but decided to ignore them instead. ACLJ contended that "State requires lawsuits because it saves the agency the hassle of actively maintaining a FOIA-disclosure regime." State responded that ACLJ's claim could not survive because Boasberg had already found that its acknowledgement letters were consistent with FOIA obligations and it could not be sued for failure to provide sufficient training. But this time, Boasberg pointed out that ACLJ's claim was based on its allegation that State required requesters to sue to get records. He noted that "that policy or practice, if proven, would violate the basic tenets of FOIA, including its requirement that agencies disclose information in the first place." Based on its own experience requesting records from State, ACLJ indicated that no matter how long it waited for a response, the agency did not respond unless ACLJ filed suit. Boasberg observed that "if true, these allegations at least encapsulate an informal modus operandi for the Department's dealing with its requestors �" in effect, a wink-wink that it takes a lawsuit for the Government to get going on its FOIA duties." Acknowledging the low bar for allowing a complaint to proceed, Boasberg pointed out that "even if Plaintiff were to ultimately prove its case, moreover, the remedial question would still remain open. . ."
Opinion/Order [41]Issues: Litigation - Jurisdiction - Failure to State a Claim FOIA Project Annotation: Judge James Boasberg has ruled that the Department of State's inability to respond to FOIA requests until after requesters file a lawsuit does not constitute a policy or practice designed to evade its statutory obligations under FOIA. Although he had previously allowed a lawsuit filed by the American Center for Law and Justice to continue based on ACLJ's allegations of the existence of such a policy or practice, after considering the merits of ACLJ's claim, Boasberg found no indication that the agency was acting improperly and that its inability to meet the statutory deadlines was due to the usual suspects â€" increased FOIA obligations and the agency's limited resources. However, an unexplored thread in ACLJ's lawsuit is the extent to which its founder Jay Sekulow, who has emerged as a legal adviser to the Trump administration, may have influenced Trump's decision ordering the agency to clean up is backlog. ACLJ sued the agency after waiting five months for State to respond to its request concerning funding of a political organization opposed to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, alleging the agency had a pattern or practice of failing to respond to requesters within the statutory time limits. Boasberg had previously found that ACLJ had not pointed to a specific policy or practice but allowed it to amend its complaint. ACLJ then amended its complaint to allege that State required requesters to file suit before it would respond to requests. Finding this allegation stated a claim, Boasberg allowed the suit to continue. Boasberg started by indicating that "standing in such cases to challenge and receive relief from an agency policy or practice is limited 'to the FOIA requests submitted by the plaintiff actually at issue in this case," and pointed out that "to warrant equitable relief, a plaintiff must show that the agency (1) repeatedly violated FOIA through a (2) policy that is (3) 'sufficiently outrageous.' As the agency does not dispute that its delays contravene the Act, the Court focuses on the last two elements." ACLJ pointed to the agency's "chronic FOIA understaffing and undertraining, as well as its admitted policy of prioritizing FOIA requests in litigation over others" as evidence of a conscious illegal policy. But Boasberg observed that "the Court finds no evidence that State has any policy, formal or otherwise, of forcing requesters to file suit before releasing material. No one would deny that Defendant is habitually late in providing determinations to requesters, but 'while tardiness would violate FOIA, it only becomes actionable when "some policy or practice" also undergirds it."'" He added that "a policy-or-practice plaintiff must, rather, show that the agency's actions are 'done to delay requests.'" Boasberg agreed that State's annual FOIA report substantiated its claims that it suffered from a "substantial FOIA caseload and backlog" made worse by "high FOIA litigation demands." State's 2016 annual report showed that it had 11,731 pending requests and that the agency processed 15,482 requests throughout the year. However, "it still ended up in the hole," because it received 27,961 requests that year. Boasberg noted that "going into 2017, therefore, State had 24,210 pending requests â€" more than double what it started the year with. It is hardly shocking, then, that Defendant rarely meets the twenty-day FOIA-response deadline." In 2016, according to State's annual report, the agency took 342 days to process a simple request and 517 days to process a complex request. The median number of days to complete a simple request was 166, while the median number of days to complete a complex request was 392. Boasberg observed these figures were "roughly 8 and 20 times longer than FOIA allows." He explained that "while these statistics are clear evidence of the Department's non-compliance with FOIA, the numbers do not lead to the conclusion that litigation is the only hope for requesters. State 'is engaged in approximately 108 FOIA litigation cases,' which is roughly 1% of the total requests. The vast majority of FOIA requests, then, are completed without judicial involvement." ACLJ pointed to the fact that there was a total of 31 vacancies in the FOIA staff because of a department hiring freeze as evidence that State was not trying to comply with FOIA. State responded that once it got authorization for 25 new FOIA positions it quickly filled 10 positions and also reassigned some Foreign Service officers to review documents. Boasberg indicated that "this evidence strongly supports Defendant's assertion that it is its FOIA backlog and caseload â€" not lack of effort or a specific policy â€" that makes it difficult (if not impossible) to comply with the statutory deadlines." ACLJ argued that State had not actually made any real progress in tackling its backlog. Boasberg disagreed, noting that "in fact, total processed requests increased by 105% between 2015 and 2016, and, in this past year, the agency's backlog decreased by a substantial 52%. In absolute terms, therefore, the agency is showing some improvement." In response to ACLJ's claim that State improperly prioritized cases in litigation, Boasberg observed that "prioritizing litigation cases, however, is not 'an improper litigation-forcing policy,' but part of the statutory scheme. In fact, it seems that litigation â€" such as the five suits brought by ACLJ â€" only exacerbates delays." ACLJ complained that the agency took 286 days to respond its requests. Boasberg pointed out that those responses were "still two months shorter than the Department's average time for all simple FOIA requests. The statistics thus do not bear our ACLJ's claim that State treats it differently. Perhaps Plaintiff would prefer State to move faster in filling open positions and processing requests, but the Department's pace does not amount to a 'willful and intentional dereliction of its FOIA responsibilities.'" Boasberg explained that the pattern or practice cause of action stemmed from Payne Enterprise v. USA, 837 F.2d 486 (D.C. Cir. 1988) and Long v. IRS, 693 F.2d 907 (9th Cir. 1982), where the agencies "admitted that the documents should be released but intentionally decided not to." By contrast, he observed that "here, State has not even made its determination about whether to disclose ACLJ's requested documents. An agency's intransigence in processing requests could give rise to a 'viable' policy-or-practice claim, but 'inevitable but unintended delay attributable to lack of resources' is insufficient to support one." ACLJ pointed to a 2016 Inspector General's report finding numerous deficiencies in State's FOIA processing as evidence that State had not taken the findings seriously. But Boasberg noted that "weighing State's non-compliance against its good-faith efforts to come up with ways to reduce its backlog and respond promptly, as well as the absence of malice in its delays, the Court sees no need for an injunction here. State has begun to address its FOIA backlog and has implemented procedures to improve its response time. Absent some evidence that the agency is deliberately trying to shirk its FOIA obligations or other ill intent, ACLJ is not entitled to equitable relief."
Issues: Litigation - Jurisdiction - Failure to State a Claim | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
