Case Detail
| Case Title | ROSENBERG et al v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | District of Columbia | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Washington, DC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 1:2017cv00437 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2017-03-10 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | Open | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Judge Amit P. Mehta | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | CAROL ROSENBERG | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | MIAMI HERALD MEDIA COMPANY | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Description | Miami Herald reporter Carol Rosenberg submitted a FOIA request to the Department of Defense for emails sent by John Kelly, then commander of Southern Command, to Lisa Monaco, Homeland Security advisor to then President Obama. Rosenberg also requested expedited processing. The agency denied Rosenberg's request for expedited processing. Rosenberg then filed suit. Complaint issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Expedited processing, Litigation - Attorney's fees | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 1000 Defense Pentagon Washington, DC 20301-1000 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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 Opinion/Order [27] FOIA Project Annotation: Ruling in a case brought by Miami Herald reporter Carol Rosenberg for emails sent by then SOUTHCOM Commander Gen. John Kelly to Lisa Monaco, then Assistant to President Obama for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, pertaining to issues concerning the Guantanamo Bay detention center, Judge Amit Mehta becomes the first district court judge in the D.C. Circuit to substantively consider the impact of the codification of the foreseeable harm standard in the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016. Chiding the Justice Department's Office of Information Policy for its failure to update its FOIA Guide to reflect the 2016 amendments, Mehta explained that he found only two cases �" Edelman v. SEC, 239 F. Supp. 3d 45 (D.D.C. 2017), in which Judge Randolph Moss discussed the impact of the codification of the foreseeable harm standard in passing, and Ecological Rights Foundation v. FEMA, 2017 WL 5972702 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2017), which provided a more detailed examination of the agency's burden of proof in analyzing the applicability of the foreseeable harm standard �" addressing the issue at all. Mehta rejected the Defense Department's claim that the statutory codification of the foreseeable harm standard had virtually no effect on an agency's burden of proof, but rather than deny the agency's deliberative process privilege claims, he sent the case back to the agency to give it a chance to supplement its affidavits. Rosenberg, who has covered SOUTHCOM and Guantanamo Bay for the Miami Herald for years, made the request for Kelly's emails after he became a potential candidate for a national security position in the Trump administration. As a result, she asked for expedited processing, which the agency denied. However, the agency eventually provided her with 256 email records and 92 attachments, totaling 548 pages. The agency redacted or withheld records under Exemption 1 (national security), Exemption 3 (other statutes), Exemption 5 (privileges), Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy), and Exemption 7(E) (investigative method or techniques). Rosenberg did not challenge the denial of expedited processing or the adequacy of the search but did question the agency's exemption claims. Rosenberg argued that by citing nothing beyond the elements of the deliberative process privilege, the agency had failed to assess the impact of the 2016 codification of the foreseeable harm standard while DOD contended that the codification "does not require an agency to go through the superfluous exercise of showing how each disclosure would harm its deliberative process, especially where, as here, the agency's declaration explains that disclosing any of General Kelly's 'routine consultations with senior DOD and White House officials. . . about ongoing operational issues at [Guantanamo Bay]' would impede open discussion of these issues." Based on the statutory language, as well as the analysis from the court in Ecological Rights Foundation v. FEMA, Mehta pointed out that "to satisfy the 'foreseeable harm' standard, DOD must explain how a particular Exemption 5 withholding would harm the agency's deliberative process. DOD may take a categorical approach �" that is, group together like records �" but in that case, it must explain the foreseeable harm of disclosure of each category." Mehta pointed out that he was "unmoved by Defendant's argument that a more specific foreseeable-harm analysis would be duplicative. . .In DOD's view, [a] general explanation is all that is required, 'particularly where the nature of these documents is explained in detail.' To be sure, the agency's declaration provides sufficiently detailed descriptions of the nature and substance of withheld communications about JTF-GTMO operations between General Kelly and senior DOD officials. Indeed, the declaration provides that these communications run the gamut [of] discussions. . ." However, Mehta observed that "pointing out the breadth and variety of these categories of deliberative discussions only serves to undermine Defendant's argument that it has satisfied its statutory obligation." Agreeing with the agency that discussions on sensitive topics were probably privileged, Mehta added that "absent more detail from the agency, the court can less readily agree with the notion that disclosure of other, seemingly more benign, categories of withheld deliberative information. . .would reasonably result in the same level of harm to the exemption-protected interest." Adopting the kind of functional categorical approach sometimes used under Exemption 7(A) (interference with ongoing investigation or proceeding), Mehta noted that "the court does not read the statutory 'foreseeable harm' requirement to go so far as to require the government to identify harm likely to result from disclosure of each of its Exemption 5 withholdings. A categorical approach will do. But the court agrees with Plaintiffs that the government must do more than perfunctorily state that disclosure of all the withheld information �" regardless of category or substance �" 'would jeopardize the free exchange of information between senior leaders within and outside of the [DOD].'" Based on his in camera review of a sampling of the withheld documents, Mehta ruled on Rosenberg's contention that some exemption claims were either based on bad faith efforts to conceal embarrassing information or that some withheld exchanges were neither predecisional nor deliberative. He rejected Rosenberg's claim of bad faith but agreed that an instance in which Kelly was expressing his opinion on the merits of a military commission about a female guard "is not directed towards decision-making as to law or policy, and that such material is not subject to the deliberative process privilege." Rosenberg also challenged some of the agency's Exemption 1 claims. Rosenberg argued that information about detainee health could not be withheld because it had already entered the public domain. Rejecting her claim that information about forced-feeding had already been officially acknowledged, Mehta observed that "rather than demonstrate that the 'information requested' is 'as specific as the information previously released,' Plaintiffs have merely identified facts relating to hunger strikes and enteral feeding from a variety of sources �" some 'official' but most not �" 'in the hopes that such information collectively is "as specific as" and "matches" the information that has been withheld.' But Plaintiffs' approach is unavailing." Mehta agreed with Rosenberg that information about a prisoner-release to Oman had been officially acknowledged and should be disclosed. Mehta accepted the agency's claims of Exemption 6 and Exemption 7(E). Rosenberg argued that because policies of the Bureau of Prisons pertaining to hunger strikes and forced-feeding were publicly available, DOD's policies should be disclosed as well. Mehta disagreed. He pointed out that "the information withheld from the record details the differences between BOP policy and the policy employed at JTF-GTMO; the policies and procedures in force at JTF-GTMO for hunger strikes and enteral feeding thus are not publicly available. Plaintiffs cannot seek disclosure of JTF-GTMO's policies based on another agency's public disclosure of its policies."
Opinion/Order [46]Issues: Exemption 7(E) - Investigative methods or techniques, Exemption 1 - Harm to national security, Exemption 6 - Personnel, medical, similar file, Exemption 5 - Privileges - Deliberative process privilege - Predecisional, Exemption 5 - Privileges - Deliberative process privilege - Deliberative, Exemption 7(E) - Unknown to public FOIA Project Annotation: In 2018, Judge Amit Mehta was the first D.C. Circuit district court judge to find that an agency's obligation under the 2016 FOIA Improvement Act, codifying the foreseeable harm standard so that it applied to all the exemptions, required more of agencies than to merely recite the elements of the applicable exemption. Instead, after examining the legislative history of the 2016 amendments, he concluded that, while agencies did not have provide complex explanations for every exemption claim, they did have to provide more detail articulating the reason for claiming the applicable exemption to satisfy their burden on summary judgment. Other district court judges in the D.C. Circuit â€" Emmet Sullivan, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, and Beryl Howell â€" have since reached similar conclusions. Now, however, Mehta has been the first district court judge to review and accept an agency's detailed foreseeable harm exemption claims. Both of Mehta's decisions involved FOIA litigation brought by Miami Herald reporter Carol Rosenberg for emails from former Marine Corps General John Kelly when he was head of U.S. Southern Command and in charge of Joint Task Force Guantanamo, to Lisa Monaco, who was then Assistant to President Obama for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. In response to Rosenberg's request the Defense Department located 256 emails and 92 attachments totaling 548 pages, disclosing them with redactions or withholdings made under Exemption 1 (national security), Exemption 3 (other statutes), Exemption 5 (privileges), Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy), and Exemption 7(E) (investigative methods or techniques). He accepted the agency's claims made pursuant to Exemption 3, Exemption 6, and Exemption 7(E), but found that the agency had not adequately justified its Exemption 1 and Exemption 5 claims. In his 2018 opinion, Mehta had agreed with Rosenberg that one figure concerning a tally of hunger strikers and tube-fed detainees reported on the Miami Herald website derived from a public statement by Army Lt. Col. Samuel House, an Army spokesperson at Guantanamo and thus constituted an official acknowledgment. But he had also indicated that Rosenberg had failed to provide evidence that other figures on the website were based on official disclosures. Rosenberg had asked for reconsideration on this point, and after providing proof that all the website figures tallying hunger strikes and forced feedings at Guantanamo were based on official acknowledgements, Mehta ruled in her favor. He observed that "Carol Rosenberg's new declaration confirms, and DOD does not dispute, that 'every single data point in [the database] was obtained directly from an official in the Department of Defense who was authorized to disclose publicly the number of hunger strikers and forced feedings.'" Mehta found "this additional information constitutes a 'change in the court's awareness of the circumstances,' which 'might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court.' The flexible threshold for interlocutory reconsideration is therefore satisfied. DOD would have the court deny reconsideration because Plaintiffs have not identified any 'new evidence' that was not previously available to it, but the court fails to see how 'justice requires' such a result.' In their earlier briefing, Plaintiffs clearly intended to demonstrate that all of these records had been officially disclosed, and now they have provided evidence demonstrating as much. Furthermore, denying reconsideration would seem particularly unjust given that the court has given DOD the opportunity to supplement the record with information that was likewise available to the agency during the previous round of briefing." DOD argued that Rosenberg had not shown that the information on the Miami Herald website was a match to the undisclosed figures. But Mehta pointed out that "the court already found that DOD must disclose 'the number of hunger strikers and forced-fed detainees for the date of May 15, 2013,' because the official disclosure of those tallies was as specific as, and matched the information Plaintiffs sought. The same is true of DOD's official disclosures as to all other tallies in this timeframe." In his earlier opinion, Mehta found that DOD had not shown that email exchanges in which Kelly expressed his opinion on the effect of a military commission's decision that female guards could not touch certain detainees were truly deliberative. Further, he found that DOD did not provide enough detail to meet its burden of proof on the issue of the foreseeable harm from disclosure for its Exemption 5 claims. He allowed DOD to supplement its affidavits and this time around found that the agency's explanations regarding both concerns were appropriate. As to whether Kelly's comments about the commission's ruling were deliberative, Mehta indicated that the agency's affidavit "confirms that General Kelly was not just 'opining or reflecting' on the ruling. Rather, his opinions were part of a broader deliberative process in which he was 'considering various options in relation to the military commission's temporary order.'" Mehta pointed out that "General Kelly's decisions about the merits of the ruling â€" understood in their broader context as part of the agency's deliberations â€" are therefore subject to the deliberative process privilege." Mehta explained that in his previous opinion he had concluded that "the degree of detail necessary to substantiate a claim of foreseeable harm is context-specific. In some instances, the withheld information may be so obviously sensitive â€" such as the disclosure of internal deliberations between a high-ranking military commander and senior government officials about a new detention operation in the United States â€" that a simple statement illustrating why the privilege applies and identifying the harm likely to result from release 'may be enough.' In other instances â€" such as where the withheld deliberations involve more mundane, quotidian matters or the decisions have already been made â€" more explanation may be necessary." The agency had provided a supplemental affidavit explaining its Exemption 5 claims which, Mehta noted, had been divided into eight categories focusing on aspects of detainee operations. Mehta found the agency's detailed explanation more than sufficient except for a category entitled "facilities management," where Mehta found the agency had failed to provide an adequate explanation. Rosenberg argued that the categories often included overlapping issues that did not seem sufficiently related to each other. But Mehta noted that "all this shows, however, is that the withheld records often involve multiple, overlapping categories of information. An agency taking a categorical approach does indeed have an obligation to 'group together like records,' so that the court can be sure that the records in that category all present similar risks of harm to an exemption-protected interest, but there is no reason a record cannot fall into multiple categories." Rosenberg also challenged whether disclosure of these discussions would cause foreseeable harm since they may have taken place years ago. Mehta rejected that claim as well, noting that "plaintiff loses sight of the fact that these are communications among the highest levels of leadership at DOD and the White House about highly sensitive operation issues at Guantanamo. Given the sensitivity of this information, the court can readily see how its release would prospectively harm agency decisionmaking, not withstanding the fact that the records are more than six years old."
Issues: Exemption 1 - Properly classified, Exemption 5 - Privileges - Deliberative process privilege - Deliberative | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
