Case Detail
| Case Title | Sea Shepherd Legal v. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration et al | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | Western District of Washington | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Seattle | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 2:2020cv01412 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2020-09-23 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2021-12-10 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Judge James L. Robart | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | Sea Shepherd Legal | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Description | Sea Shepherd Legal submitted a FOIA request to the National Marine Fisheries Service for records concerning the New Zealand Maui dolphin. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request but after hearing nothing further from the agency, Sea Shepherd Legal filed suit. Complaint issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Adequacy - Search, Litigation - Attorney's fees | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration an agency of the United States | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | National Marine Fisheries Service an agency of the United States | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Complaint attachment 3 Complaint attachment 4 Complaint attachment 5 Complaint attachment 6 Opinion/Order [17] Opinion/Order [19] Opinion/Order [21] FOIA Project Annotation: A federal court in Washington has ruled that NOAA properly responded to two FOIA requests from Sea Shepherd Legal, an organization advocating for the rights of marine wildlife by strengthening existing laws protecting it, by withholding records under Exemption 5 (privileges) and Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy). SSL submitted two requests â€" one to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and one to the National Marine Fisheries Service â€" for records concerning the agency's denial of SSL's petition to ban all products originating from New Zealand fisheries because their nets posed a substantial danger to the Maui dolphin. The agencies disclosed more than 1,000 pages entirely but also partially redacted over 400 pages of records. SSL argued that while the records redacted under Exemption 5 were deliberative, they were not pre-decisional because they post-dated the agencies final decisions. The court found that SSL had failed to substantiate its claim for most records except for those that clearly post-dated the publication of the Federal Register notice rejecting SSL's petition. The court noted that "the emails concern internal discussion over 'how to present certain issues,' such as what citations to include in the notice and how to speed publication along. Plainly, the decision to reject the petition had already been made, and these documents concern how to package or present that decision without implicating new policy decisions." For the most part, however, the court agreed with the agencies' characterization of the records as deliberative. As to one set of records, the court pointed out that "these notes reflect the opinion of individual staffers rather than the position of the entire agency, which falls squarely within the understanding of 'deliberative.' Moreover, while the notes. . . undoubtedly capture some factual information, they also reveal what information that staffer found important or relevant. . ." Under Exemption 6, the agencies withheld personally identifying information of New Zealand officials, which would be protected under New Zealand's privacy laws. The court indicated that "the 'marginal additional usefulness' of the New Zealand officials' identities would not add significantly to the public's understanding of the Government's handling of the petition or the comparability finding." The court also found that the agencies had justified all their exemption claims under the foreseeable harm standard.
Issues: Exemption 5 - Privileges - Deliberative process privilege - Deliberative, Exemption 5 - Privileges - Deliberative process privilege - Predecisional, Exemption 6 - Invasion of privacy | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
