Case Detail
Case Title | SAVAGE v. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
District | District of Columbia | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
City | Washington, DC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Number | 1:2019cv02983 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Filed | 2019-10-03 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Closed | Open | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Judge | Judge Amy Berman Jackson | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Plaintiff | COURTLAND SAVAGE | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Description | Courtland Savage, an African American student pilot with the Navy, submitted a FOIA request to the Department of the Navy for records concerning an investigation report on allegations of racial discrimination that resulted in Savage resigning from the Navy. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request. The Navy disclosed a heavily redacted copy of the report, claiming Exemption 3 (other statutes), Exemption 5 (privileges), and Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy). Savage filed an administrative appeal of the denial. The Navy upheld the denial. Savage then filed suit. Complaint issues: Litigation - Attorney's fees | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Complaint attachment 3 Complaint attachment 4 Opinion/Order [22] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Amy Berman Jackson has ruled that the Department of the Navy has not shown that redactions made to an investigation report of charges against Courtland Savage, an African American and former naval officer assigned to as a student pilot with the Navy's Strike Fighter Squadron, who was removed from the program after a subjective review board, were proper. Savage challenged the outcome, arguing that he was the victim of racial discrimination. The Navy conducted an investigation and Vice Admiral Dewolfe Miller endorsed some but not all portions of the final report. In response to Savage's FOIA request, the agency disclosed a redacted version of the report, withholding information under Exemption 5 (privileges). Berman Jackson found that the redactions were covered by the deliberative process privilege. But Berman Jackson explained that the Navy had failed to satisfy the foreseeable harm standard. She noted that "since it is already publicly known that the Vice Admiral rejected recommendations from the investigating officer he appointed, the excision of his observations might have more of a chilling effect on future investigations than the release of the information would." She observed that "if the purpose of the Act is to enable the public 'to be informed' about what their government is up to,' and to make it own judgment concerning the validity of governmental decision making, that purpose will be frustrated in this case if the public is only given access to the decision to delete statements or conclusions and not to the matters the Vice Admiral decided to delete. Under those unique circumstances, the Navy's recitation of boilerplate warnings of the harm that could flow from disclosing deliberative material is particularly unpersuasive as a basis for withholding it in this case." Berman Jackson indicated that personally identifying information had been properly redacted under Exemption 7(C) (invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records). She pointed out that "the privacy interest in this case is clear: individuals were named in the report in connection with allegation of racial bias and harassment." She observed that "the specter of third parties losing some degree of privacy is hardly theoretical; one of the goals of this lawsuit is to publish unredacted materials which plaintiff's lawyer has already seen." Savage argued that there was a public interest in disclosure, but Berman Jackson indicated that "these significant interests can be fulfilled without revealing the names of every individual involved in this case."
Issues: Exemption 5 - Privileges - Deliberative process privilege - Deliberative, Exemption 5 - Privileges - Deliberative process privilege - Predecisional | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|