Case Detail
Case Title | NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION v. U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
District | District of Columbia | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
City | Washington, DC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Number | 1:2021cv00244 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Filed | 2021-01-27 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Closed | 2022-08-25 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Judge | Judge Dabney L. Friedrich | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Plaintiff | NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Description | The National Wildlife Federation submitted a FOIA request to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for records concerning an Agency Technical Review Summary Report for the Pearl River Watershed. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request. The agency denied the request under Exemption 5 (privileges). NWF filed an administrative appeal. After hearing nothing further from the agency, NWF filed suit. Complaint issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Segregability - Disclosure of all non-exempt records, Litigation - Attorney's fees | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | RANKIN-HINDS PEARL RIVER FLOOD AND DRAINAGE CONTROL DISTRICT | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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 Opinion/Order [21] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Dabney Friedrich has rejected an attempt by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to withhold a draft Agency Technical Review prepared for Rankin-Hinds' Draft Study regarding its proposed Pearl River Basin flood control project after the Corps argued the draft was protected by Exemption 5 (privileges), even though Rankin-Hinds was not a federal agency for purposes of Exemption 5. After finding that Exemption 5 did not apply, Friedrich went on to find that Exemption 4 (commercial and confidential) was probably not applicable either. The FOIA request stemmed from a proposed flood control project in the Pearl River Basin in Mississippi authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. In 2007, Congress modified this authorization to direct the Secretary of the Army to build the project in accordance with the Pearl River Watershed, Mississippi, Feasibility Study Main Report, Preliminary Draft after taking into consideration whether the local plan provides a level of flood damage reduction that is equal to or greater than the level of flood damage reduction provided by the national economic plan and is environmentally acceptable and technically feasible. If these conditions are met the Secretary may construct the project identified in the national economic development plan, or the locally preferred plan, or some combination thereof or a non-federal interest may carry out the project. A non-Federal interest may propose a plan and the Secretary is required to review such feasibility studies submitted by a non-Federal interest. A non-Federal interest may submit to the Secretary a request that the Secretary initiate this process and the non-Federal interest may pay the Secretary to undertake such a review. Here, Rankin-Hinds Pearl River Flood and Drainage Control District, a non-Federal interest, prepared an Integrated Draft Feasibility Study and Environmental Impact Statement for a local project in the Pearl River Basin. Rankin-Hinds is a political subdivision of the State of Mississippi. After finishing its Draft Study in 2012, Rankin-Hinds contacted the Corps to conduct a technical review and to ensure it was in compliance with federal requirements. Rankin-Hinds published its Draft Study on its website. The Agency Technical Review consists of 11 steps and is overseen by a team lead which prepares the final ATR Summary Report. The process involves back-and-forth communications by the two parties that leads to edits to the Draft Study by the party that engaged the Corps. In 2018, while the Corps was reviewing the Rankin-Hinds' Draft Study, the ATR team lead announced his pending retirement. His supervisor asked the retiring team leader to prepare an in-progress report to document how the review had been conducted and its current status. The team lead prepared the June 2018 Agency Technical Review Summary Report, which was shared with the Corps and with Rankin-Hinds. In May 2019, the National Wildlife Federation submitted a FOIA request to the Corps for a copy of the Corps' June 2018 draft ATR for Rankin-Hinds' Draft Study regarding its proposed Pearl River Basin flood control project. The Corps denied the NWF's request under Exemption 5. After NWF filed suit, the agency cited both Exemption 4 and Exemption 5 as the basis for withholding the draft study. Friedrich started her analysis of Exemption 4 by explaining that the Supreme Court's 2019 decision in Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, 139 S. Ct. 2356 (2019), in which the Court rejected the substantial competitive harm test that first was established in the 1974 decision in National Parks and indicated instead that records were confidential for purposes of Exemption 4 if they were kept confidential by the company and the government agreed to treat the records as confidential. The Corps argued that Rankin-Hinds claimed the records were confidential. Friedrich noted that "however, these representations do not address the relevant inquiry â€" how Rankin-Hinds treated the kind of information it provided to the Corps that the agency then included in its 2018 draft ATR." She pointed out that "the declaration by the Chairman of Rankin-Hinds is clear that Rankin-Hinds made (and still makes) some information of that kind public by publishing the Draft Study the Corps reviewed." Friedrich then noted that "nonetheless, it is unclear from the agency's affidavits whether the Corps' 2018 draft ATR included only information provided by Rankin-Hinds that appeared in its publicly available Draft Study." She indicated that "if the Corps' 2018 draft ATR includes additional information provided by Rankin-Hinds that it did not disclose publicly, then the Corps may be able to make the necessary showing under Exemption 4. But based on the current record, the Court cannot discern whether the Corps' 2018 draft ATR contains non-public information provided by Rankin-Hinds." She allowed the Corps to provide a supplemental affidavit to address those concerns. Turning to Exemption 5, Friedrich explained that "facially, it appears that the first condition [of Exemption 5 that records be either inter- or intra-agency records] is not met because the 2018 draft ATR was shared between the Corps, an agency, and Rankin-Hinds, which the agency concedes 'does not meet the traditional definition of agency.' "'Agency' is defined by FOIA to be 'each authority of the Government of the United States, whether or not it is within or subject to review by another agency.' Rankin-Hinds is a political subdivision of Mississippi and does not qualify under the FOIA definition of agency because it is not an authority of the United States government." Regardless of its actual legal status, the Corps suggested that Friedrich that find Rankin-Hinds was a quasi-federal agency for purposes of the Pearl River Basin Flood Control project, or that the consultant corollary doctrine applied, meaning that Rankin-Hinds was acting as a consultant to the agency. Instead, Friedrich rejected both suggestions. Friedrich pointed out that "the Corps cites no authority for treating the entity of another government as a 'quasi-federal agency.' And this court has noted 'that a state agency is generally not an agency for purposes of FOIA.' Indeed, 'agency' is defined as 'each authority of the Government of the United States' and FOIA exemptions 'are construed narrowly in keeping with [the statute's] presumption in favor of disclosure.'" She noted that such a definition also ran counter to the definition of non-Federal interests contained in the Water Resources Development Act. She pointed out that "Rankin-Hinds is not working with the Corps in the Secretary's deliberative process; rather, Rankin-Hinds will be an applicant proposing an alternative plan â€" not an advisor helping the Secretary choose between the two." She explained that "there is no dispute that the Corps did not hire Rankin-Hinds; rather, Rankin-Hinds hired the Corps as its consultant. Thus, the entities' relationship is not the kind covered by the consultant corollary." Although the agency argued that this was a perfect example of the application of the consultant corollary, Friedrich indicated that "but that is not the case. Here, the relationship is reversed, and the Corps has cited to no authority applying the corollary in reverse." She concluded that "here, Rankin-Hinds, the non-agency, hired the Corps, the agency, to advise it and thus further its own interests â€" namely, the approval and ultimate selection of the locally preferred plan for the Pearl River water project over the federal government's proposed national economic development plan. Thus, the relationship is not akin to the relationship contemplated by the consultant corollary and the Court will not extend it."
Issues: Exemption 4 - Confidential business information, Exemption 5 - Privileges - Deliberative process privilege - Deliberative, Agency - Federal | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|