Case Detail
Case Title | CENTER FOR PUBLIC INTEGRITY v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
District | District of Columbia | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
City | Washington, DC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Number | 1:2017cv01162 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Filed | 2017-06-14 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Closed | 2018-09-25 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Judge | Judge Christopher R. Cooper | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Plaintiff | CENTER FOR PUBLIC INTEGRITY | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Description | The Center for Public Integrity submitted a FOIA request to the Federal Election Commission for records concerning the agency's Twitter account. The agency disclosed seven documents and withheld 14 documents. CPI filed an administrative appeal, which was denied. CPI submitted a second FOIA request for records concerning policies for retaining emails of senior officials. The agency indicated that it had found responsive records, but after hearing nothing further from the agency, CPI filed suit on both requests. Complaint issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation - Attorney's fees | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Complaint attachment 3 Complaint attachment 4 Opinion/Order [23] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Christopher Cooper has ruled that the Federal Election Commission properly redacted emails concerning the "@altFEC" Twitter account and emails from EOP.gov under Exemption 5 (privileges). The Center for Public Integrity made a FOIA request to the agency for records referencing the Twitter account. The agency located 21 pages and withheld 14 pages under Exemption 5. CPI made a second FOIA request for emails from the domain EOP.gov sent to the commissioners or senior managers at the agency. The agency located 14 pages and referred them to OMB. OMB suggested redactions under Exemption 5 and Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy), which were adopted by the FEC. CPI argued that the redactions made under Exemption 5 did not qualify for the deliberative process privilege. The agency explained that the emails "consisted of communications among attorneys at different levels in the FEC's Office of General Counsel working to identify and analyze potential legal issues that the 'altFEC' Twitter account might raise.' In other words, agency lawyers were engaged in a back-and-forth discussion on a specific legal question. 'There can be no doubt that such legal advice, given in the form of intra-agency memoranda prior to any agency decision on the issues involved, fits exactly within the deliberative process rationale for Exemption 5.'" CPI argued that there must be some segregable information in the emails. Cooper noted that "to the extent the Center counters that there must be some non-exempt information that can be released like the names of senders and recipients, the FEC has disclosed that very information in the Vaughn index attached to its reply. . .Requiring the agency to release additional factual information beyond that in the Vaughn index would risk revealing the underlying deliberations themselves." The records withheld by OMB included a meeting agenda. Cooper pointed out that "a meeting agenda prepared before the meeting is necessarily predecisional and inherently deliberative in that staff are suggesting the topics to be discussed in the meeting." Cooper found another email sent by OMB to agency chief information security officers was properly redacted. He observed that "relevant agency experts engaged in a back-and-forth consultation about possibilities for evaluating the manner by which agencies handle data and other forms of information. As such, this email reflects 'recommendations and deliberations comprising part of the process by which government decisions and policies' â€" such as how to evaluate information resource management â€" 'are formulated.'"
Issues: Exemption 5 - Privileges - Deliberative process privilege - Predecisional, Exemption 5 - Privileges - Deliberative process privilege - Deliberative | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|