Case Detail
| Case Title | CAUSE OF ACTION INSTITUTE v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | District of Columbia | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Washington, DC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 1:2020cv00997 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2020-04-16 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2021-04-20 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | CAUSE OF ACTION INSTITUTE | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Description | Cause of Action Institute submitted a FOIA request to the Department of Veterans Affairs for records concerning email communications and reports pertaining to the Pilot Study Contract. Cause of Action Institute also requested a fee waiver. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request. The agency subsequently told Cause of Action Institute that its Office of Acquisition and Logistics had conducted a search and found no responsive records, but that the request had been transferred to the Veterans Health Administration for a final response. VHA acknowledged receipt of the request but after hearing nothing further from the agency Cause of Action Institute filed suit. Complaint issues: Litigation - Attorney's fees, Failure to respond within statutory time limit | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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 Complaint attachment 9 Complaint attachment 10 Opinion/Order [23] FOIA Project Annotation: Ruling in a case brought by Cause of Action Institute focusing on whether a uniform methodology for preparing pilot market assessments created by Pricewaterhouse Coopers (PWC), was protected by Exemption 5 (deliberative process privilege), Judge Beryl Howell has provided some context for applying the recent Supreme Court's ruling in Fish and Wildlife Service v. Sierra Club, 141 S. Ct 777 (2021), in which the Court found that biological opinions required to be prepared by FWS under the Endangered Species Act, were not final because the EPA, the agency for whose regulation the opinion was prepared, never actually considered it. While read in isolation, Sierra Club appears to add little to the debate on when decisions become final for purposes of the deliberative process privilege, Howell's decision makes clear that Sierra Club adds a missing part that makes it nearly impossible for requesters to challenge privilege claims where one decision bleeds into another deliberation and, as a result, almost nothing is ever final. Cause of Action Institute requested the records from the Department of Veterans Affairs after the agency announced plans for addressing the congressionally mandated Market Area Health System Organization analysis, part of a broader plan to improve the delivery of health care to veterans. Cause of Action Institute specifically requested records related to the results of the Pilot Study Contract, intended to provide a framework for conducting further pilot studies. After initially being referred to the VA Construction Facility and Management FOIA Office, the request was subsequently sent to the Veterans Health Administration for response. The agency identified seven documents responsive to the request, containing 489 pages, including three pilot market assessments and three attached documents prepared by PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC). The agency withheld all the records under Exemption 5, citing the deliberative process privilege. After Cause of Action Institute filed suit, the agency conducted a second review and decided that the eight-step methodology used in the three pilot market assessments could be disclosed. As a result, the agency released 38 pages, but withheld the remaining 451 pages. Cause of Action Institute argued that the records were neither predecisional nor deliberative for purposes of the deliberative process privilege. Howell first characterized the documents, noting that "all seven records 'were used to inform VA's needs in conducting. . . market studies' in each of the ninety-six markets, which studies 'are current and ongoing' and will identify 'opportunities' for capital investments, divestments, or shifts in services provided' to inform VA's National Realignment Strategy." She pointed out that "the agency avers that 'the recommendations contained in the documents were not fully acted upon, finalized or operationalized.'" She agreed that the agency had adequately described why the documents qualified for the deliberative process privilege. She indicated that "the conclusions reached in the documents offer options for the presentation, development, and types of recommendations that the agency might choose to pursue in the course of the ninety-six market assessments and the formation of the National Realignment Strategy. PWC's suggestions on these topics remain under agency consideration." Cause of Action Institute argued that "VA's deliberations about the methodology at the center of the pilot market assessments have ended and 'any supposed distinction between the pilot studies being "complete" but not "final" is mere sleight of hand.'" Cause of Action Institute pointed out that the methodology seemed completely detached from VA's broader efforts to design a national realignment strategy and that, regardless, the President had the ultimate authority under the relevant legislation. However, Howell noted that "the deadlines for VA to do so have not yet passed. Until they do, VA has substantial discretion to determine which inputs are relevant to its decisionmaking process and, crucially, to changes those inputs and its resulting views on the National Realignment Strategy." With the Sierra Club decision in hand, Howell explained that the results of contracts "may themselves be 'complete,' insofar as VA has no immediate plans to revise them further, but that represents just one of the many steps that VA must take before the MAHSO analysis, and in turn, the National Realignment Strategy are 'final.' At any point during this process that precedes the submission of the agency's findings and recommendations, so long as it remains faithful to the final criteria that will be published in the Federal Register by May 31, 2021. . .VA is free to change its approach to the assessments without any consultation or review with outside actors." Howell noted that "moreover, VA explicitly declares that the pilot market assessments 'are not final as they pertain to' the evaluation of or recommendations concerning the three pilot markets because [they]. . .will evolve over the course of the MAHSO project. In the face of these clear disclaimers of finality, the record does not support a conclusion that VA 'treats' the pilot market assessments and briefing documents 'as its final view' on either the methodology for the market assessments as a whole or the documents of the three pilot markets in particular." Howell rejected Cause of Action Institute's claim that allowing agencies to determine when drafts became final would encourage agencies to classify everything as in draft form. Howell noted that the Supreme Court had rejected the same argument in Sierra Club as too speculative. Applying the claim to the circumstances here, Howell pointed out that "to the contrary, the record shows that VA continues to refine its methodology as the nationwide market assessments progress and will revisit its evaluation of the pilot markets as more information emerges." She then rejected Cause of Action Institute's claim that the records were not deliberative because they did not make recommendations or reflect the give-and-take of the consultative process. Instead, she noted that "here, the pilot market assessments and briefing documents relate to VA's choice of methodology to carry out the market assessments, the type of improvement opportunities to pursue, and how to present its findings to the AIR Commission, Congress, and the public."
Issues: Exemption 5 - Privileges - Deliberative process privilege - Predecisional, Exemption 5 - Privileges - Deliberative process privilege - Deliberative | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
