Case Detail
Case Title | SURGEY v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
District | District of Columbia | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
City | Washington, DC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Number | 1:2018cv00654 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Filed | 2018-03-22 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Closed | 2022-02-25 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Judge | Judge Timothy J. Kelly | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Plaintiff | NICHOLAS SURGEY | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Description | Nicholas Surgey, an investigative reporter, submitted a FOIA request to the EPA for records concerning EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's travel to and attendance at the 2018 Rose Bowl game. Surgey also requested a fee waiver. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request and told Surgey that responding would not incur any fees. After hearing nothing further from the agency, Surgey filed suit. Complaint issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation - Attorney's fees | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20460 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Complaint attachment 3 Complaint attachment 4 Opinion/Order [26] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Timothy Kelly has ruled that the EPA properly responded to investigative journalist Nicholas Surgey's FOIA request for records concerning former EPA administrator Scott Pruitt's family vacation trip to the 2018 Rose Bowl game. The agency's search located 400 pages of responsive records. The agency withheld 99 records in part and 54 records in full, including contact information of individual law enforcement officers, a Joint Special Threat Assessment for the 2018 Rose Bowl game, Protective Service Detail weekly scheduling documents, and Protective Service Detail travel itineraries or vouchers. Surgey contended that the agency had failed to conduct an adequate search and failed to justify its exemption claims. The EPA used keywords designed to focus on uncovering records related to Pruitt's trip, including the use of Sooners and Bulldogs, which were the mascot names of the University of Oklahoma and the University of Georgia. Surgey argued that the agency should have searched for records that related to what the Pruitt family did on its vacation. Kelly disagreed, noting that "'in complying with a FOIA request, an agency is not required to search for records which are beyond the scope of the original request.' And the EPA properly construed Surgey's request as limited to records related to the former Administrator's trip and attendance at the Rose Bowl game." Kelly pointed out that "the former Administrator and his family may have taken other tourist trips during their vacation, but [Surgey's] language [in his request] 'is very specific as to time, place, and event for which information is sought.' Indeed, the ask is only for records 'associated with' former Administrator Pruitt's 'travel to and attendance at' the Rose Bowl game. The repeated use of the word 'associated' in the explanatory sentences that follow â€" instructing the EPA to include records about 'any associated meetings or events' and 'any other associated costs' â€" continues to tie the information requested to the former Administrator's trip to Pasadena to attend the Rose Bowl game." Kelly explained that "put simply, Surgey's 'request was not broadly drawn; it made a specific inquiry about specific actions. The agency was bound to read it as drafted, not as either agency officials or [Surgey] might wish it was drafted.'" However, Kelly noted that "the EPA 'has failed to invoke the magic words concerning the adequacy of the search â€" namely, the assertion that [the EPA] searched all locations likely to contain responsive documents.'" He explained that "the Court will therefore reserve judgment on the adequacy of the EPA's search. Assuming the agency can provide a supplemental declaration showing that it searched all locations likely to contain responsive material, the Court will grant it summary judgment on the adequacy of the search." Surgey challenged the agency's broad use of Exemption 6 to withhold details about the Pruitt's family trip beyond their trip to the Rose Bowl game and Disneyland. While Kelly agreed that there was a substantial public interest in disclosure of the information, he found that further disclosure was unwarranted. He pointed out that "the information disclosed includes key locations where the family would be present on each day â€" in particular, the Rose Bowl or Disneyland â€" and the hotels at which they were staying. This should give Surgey all he needs to determine 'how agency resources were expended to cover travel expenses for the [Private Security Detail] on Mr. Pruitt's trip to California.' Any added value provided by knowing further details of where the former Administrator's family otherwise 'dined, stayed, or spent time' would be marginal at best." Kelly agreed with the EPA that it could properly withhold information concerning security staffing under Exemption 7(E) (investigative methods or techniques) or Exemption 7(F) (harm to any person). However, he indicated that "the record suggests that at times the EPA may be applying Exemption 7(E) and 7(F) to neither staffing nor logistical coordination information, like where the Protective Service Detail went or stayed during the family's trip. And the Court is inclined to agree with Surgey that such information would not create a reasonable risk of circumvention or endangerment, thereby preventing the application of Exemption 7(E) or 7(F. But on this record, the Court cannot say for sure that the agency is applying Exemption 7(E) or 7(F) to such information." Kelly ordered the EPA to supplement its affidavits to provide a better explanation of its exemption claims. He also agreed with Surgey that the agency's segregability obligations might well be affected by its ability to justify its exemption claims.
Issues: Adequacy - Search, Exemption 7 - Law enforcement records, Segregability | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|