Case Detail
Case Title | NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO, INC. et al v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
District | District of Columbia | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
City | Washington, DC | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Number | 1:2020cv02468 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Filed | 2020-09-03 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Closed | 2023-07-26 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Judge | Judge Royce C. Lamberth | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Plaintiff | NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO, INC. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Plaintiff | TOM DREISBACH | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Description | National Public Radio reporter Tom Dreisbach submitted a FOIA request to the Department of Homeland Security for records concerning inspection and investigative reports prepared by the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties pertaining to the examination of immigration detention facilities operated under the auspices of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request. Although the agency had identified 1.076 responsive pages, it withheld them entirely under Exemption 5 (privileges) and Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy). NPR filed an administrative appeal of the denial. The agency told NPR that it was remanding the case back to CRCL to consider whether non-segregable information withheld under Exemption 5 could be disclosed. After the agency failed to respond to the remand after 30 days, the appellate authority told NPR that it could consider the action final and filed suit. NPR then filed suit. Complaint issues: Litigation - Attorney's fees, Segregability - Disclosure of all non-exempt records | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Appeal | D.C. Circuit 22-5311 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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 Complaint attachment 11 Opinion/Order [23] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Royce Lamberth has ruled that the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties at the Department of Homeland Security did not properly respond to National Public Radio reporter Tom Dreisbach's FOIA request for records concerning inspection and investigative reports from CRCL examinations of immigration detention facilities operated under the auspices of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement from January 2014 to December 2019. CRCL located 1,076 pages of responsive records but withheld records under Exemption 5 (privileges) and Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy). NPR filed an administrative appeal of the exemption claims. The agency's appellate authority found that while some records appeared privileged the agency had not shown whether they had been adopted by the agency and whether the agency had conducted an adequate segregability analysis and remanded the case back to DHS for further explanation. DHS filed a response for why the records were privileged, but not about the segregability analysis. As a result, the agency's appellate authority allowed NPR to file suit. NPR only challenged the applicability of the agency's Exemption 5 claims. Lamberth found that DHS had shown that the records were predecisional. NPR argued that because CRCL had closed four of 16 investigations indicated their examination constituted the agency's final decision. Lamberth noted that "that an agency closes an investigation or discloses some unspecified details from that investigation does not mean that it has already adopted or used the investigators' advice and recommendations." However, Lamberth concluded that the records were not deliberative. He indicated that "DHS's argument about 'unverified observations of first impression,' while creative, finds no support in extant FOIA jurisprudence. Most of the cases DHS cites (for the first time in its reply) for the proposition that such information is deliberative deal with the culling or organization of an existing collection of facts into a summary, not the initial finding of those facts." He added that "if the exception can apply to the culling of an existing collection of facts and the work of building that collection of facts, then it threatens to swallow the rule. This Court declines to expand the exception." He indicated that "because 'unverified observations of first impression' are not deliberative in nature, the deliberative process privilege applies only to the withholdings in this case that represent the experts' analysis, opinions, or recommendations." Lamberth then found that the agency had failed to show that disclosure would cause foreseeable harm. He pointed out that "nowhere does DHS explain why disclosure of these specific types of reports would chill deliberations more than that of any generic documents to which the deliberative process privilege applies." He observed that "in this case, DHS does not give a single specific explanation as to why disclosure of any particular report would cause public confusion."
Issues: Exemption 5 - Privileges - Deliberative process privilege - Deliberative, Exemption 5 - Privileges - Deliberative process privilege - Predecisional | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
User-contributed Documents | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Docket Events (Hide) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|