Case Detail
Case Title | CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
District | District of Columbia | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
City | Washington, DC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Number | 1:2018cv00377 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Filed | 2018-02-20 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Closed | 2019-12-05 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Judge | Judge Christopher R. Cooper | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Plaintiff | CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Description | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington submitted a FOIA request to the General Services Administration for records concerning the July 2017 decision to cancel construction of a new FBI headquarters building. CREW also requested a fee waiver. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request and told CREW that processing the request would not incur fees. In February 2018, GSA announced it would instead rebuild the FBI's current headquarters in Washington. After hearing nothing further from the agency, CREW filed suit. Complaint issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation - Attorney's fees | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Appeal | D.C. Circuit 19-5134 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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 General Services Administration has failed to show that it conducted an adequate search for records concerning the agency's 2018 decision to rebuild or renovate the FBI's Washington, D.C. headquarters building instead of relocating it to Northern Virginia as previously planned. Because the fact that the Trump International Hotel is directly across the street from the current FBI headquarters building might have influenced the agency's about-face, CREW submitted a six-part request for records concerning the change in plans, including communications between GSA Regional Commissioner Mary Gibert, GSA Administrator Tim Horne, and the White House. GSA initially found a single record responsive to the sixth item. It then realized that it had searched under "Mary Gilbert" rather that "Gibert," and ran the search again, locating an additional 28 responsive records, GSA withheld records under Exemption 5 (privileges) and Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy). CREW argued that it was implausible that since GSA's Inspector General had located more than 50,000 pages about the FBI headquarters consolidation project that only 29 records concerning the change of plans existed. But Cooper pointed out that "CREW's FOIA request was not for all records, 'concerning the FBI headquarters consolidation project' �" what the IG Report surveyed �" but instead for records from January 20, 2017 onward concerning the decision to 'cancel the procurement for the new FBI headquarters consolidations project.' That means many records that the IG Report reviewed would reasonably be excluded from CREW's request �" because they either predated January 20, 2017, or concern the consolidation project, but not the decision to call it off." Indicating that CREW's claims that more records must exist was nothing more than speculation, Cooper noted that "and speculation alone does not provide an adequate basis to order a subsequent search." CREW also faulted GSA for limiting the time frame and conducting a search only for electronic records. Cooper found the agency's time frame sufficiently tracked CREW's request, but that it had failed to explain why it only searched for electronic records. GSA argued that an electronic records search would capture all records since its record retention policy required paper records to be stored electronically. Cooper, however, pointed out that "the trouble for GSA is that CREW happened to read the 'record retention policy' GSA alluded to, and it appears to stand for directly the opposite proposition: that records are kept in a variety of media." Having established that, Cooper ordered the agency to search its non-electronic records. CREW also challenged the agency's failure to use "JEH" and "Hoover Building" as search terms, as well as limiting its email search to emails sent or received by Horne or Gibert. Cooper agreed with CREW on both counts. He pointed out that "part of liberally construing a request is searching for 'synonyms' and 'logical variations' of the words used in the request; an agency may not fish myopically for a 'direct hit on the records' using only 'the precise phrasing' of the requester. Here, it strikes the Court as rather likely that 'JEH' and 'the Hoover Building' �" referring to the current headquarters �" would be used in communications and records regarding the headquarters consolidations project; a search reasonably calculated to uncover all documents responsive to CREW's request therefore, ought to include these rather obvious synonyms." GSA argued that inclusion of those terms would not have yielded more records, but Cooper observed that "the words 'JEH' and "Hoover' were not used in records that also used the words 'FBI headquarters,' but they may have been used in other records �" particularly informal records like emails �" as a replacement or shorthand for 'FBI headquarters.'" As to limiting the search for emails to communications involving Horne or Gibert, Cooper explained that "a search more faithful to CREW's broad request would have searched instead for communications between .gsa and .fbi/.omb addresses." Cooper found GSA's Vaughn index completely inadequate, noting that "the description of the withheld documents is so vague as to make impossible any meaningful evaluation of the appropriateness of the deliberative-process privilege." Rejecting the agency's current claim that talking points were protected by the deliberative process privilege, Cooper pointed out that "the agency has not explained why the withheld documents constitute deliberative talking points." He added that "the agency must either provide a more robust explanation or produce the documents in full."
Opinion/Order [28]Issues: Adequacy - Search FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Christopher Cooper has ruled that the General Services Administration has failed to show that records pertaining to the appraised value of the FBI's Headquarters Building in Washington are protected by Exemption 5 (privileges). In a case brought by CREW to find out more about the agency's decision not to relocate the FBI Headquarters, he began by noting that the Findings & Determination document prepared by GSA "is plainly not predecisional" because it had been prepared by senior agency officials. He explained that "totally missing from the document are the hallmarks of predecisional give-and-take. Such as a recommendation to take a particular course of action or a weighing of alternatives. The F&D instead contains exactly what its title suggests it contains: The agency's determination and the findings that support that support that determination. The document is announcing what the agency is doing (and why), not arguing for what it should be doing." He pointed out that "all signs indicate that its purpose was 'to support a decision already made.' One need not look beyond the document's title â€" 'Findings and Determination' â€" and its date â€" July 10, 2017, the same day GSA decided to cancel the swap-relocation project â€" to discern that the document explains a decision already made rather than discusses one still in the works." Cooper found GSA's attempts to characterize the F&D as part of a larger ongoing deliberation on renovating the FBI's headquarters unconvincing. He noted that "if the agency believed that canceling the swap-relocation project was distinct from renovating the current facility, that suggests that the agency does not lump together the various proposals to achieve the FBI's goal of a larger, more modern, and more secure headquarters â€" but instead treats each means to achieving that end as a discrete proposal to be approved or declined." He observed that "the fact that an alternative plan could be put forward later on does not render predecisional the decision to call off the swap-relocation plan." GSA also suggested that disclosure could cause harm to its bargaining position when pursuing plans for the FBI Headquarters Project. Cooper, however, noted that "that may be true, but it does not rebut CREW's argument that the F&D is post-decisional and therefore not properly protected under Exemption 5."
Issues: Exemption 5 - Privileges - Deliberative process privilege - Predecisional | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|