Case Detail
| Case Title | LANDMARK LEGAL FOUNDATION v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | District of Columbia | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Washington, DC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 1:2012cv01726 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2012-10-22 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2015-06-09 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | LANDMARK LEGAL FOUNDATION | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Complaint attachment 3 Complaint attachment 4 Complaint attachment 5 Complaint attachment 6 Complaint attachment 7 Opinion/Order [19] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Royce Lamberth has rejected a request by Landmark Legal Foundation for a preliminary injunction requiring the EPA to respond to its request for records concerning any agency rule or regulation for which public notice had not yet been made by December 24. Landmark asked for expedited processing when it submitted its request in August, which the EPA denied. Landmark filed suit in October, asking for an order requiring the EPA to preserve the records, to conduct an expedited search, and to recognize Landmark as falling within the media category for fee purposes. Reviewing Landmark's request for expedited treatment, Lamberth rejected the organization's claim that it was primarily involved in disseminating information. Instead, he noted that "Landmark has only stated that 'as part of its mission as a tax-exempt, public interest law firm, Landmark investigates, litigates, and publicizes instances of improper and/or illegal government activity' and that among its primary activities is to disseminate to the public about the conduct of governmental agencies.' This is not sufficient to show that Landmark is primarily, and not just incidentally, engaged in information dissemination and thus the Court cannot now find that Landmark meets this prong of the compelling need test. A contrary reading of the statutory requirement would allow nearly any organization with a website, newsletter, or other information distribution channel to qualify as primarily engaged in disseminating information." In assessing the urgency of Landmark's need to inform the public, Lamberth indicated that "it is true that the content of Landmark's comments in response to the EPA proposed ruled may be affected by a delay in receipt of FOIA materials. However, Landmark states that it seeks information regarding politically motivated delays in publishing the rule. Thus, the failure to obtain this information should not impact Landmark's ability to comment on the substance of the rules and the merits of any proposed changes." He added that "if the EPA did, for political reasons, delay a controversial proposed rule until after the presidential election, the Court fails to see how receiving this information in January [as opposed to December] will irreparably harm Landmark." Lamberth also rejected Landmark's request to order the agency to preserve the records. He observed that "in contrast to any indication of destruction of records, the EPA has already indicated that it has begun the process of collecting records and that it has already collected approximately 1,600 pages of responsive records."
Opinion/Order [39]Issues: Expedited processing - Compelling Need FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Royce Lamberth has ruled that Landmark Legal Foundation is entitled to conduct discovery in its FOIA suit against EPA to determine if the agency used personal email accounts to conduct official business and if the agency acted in bad faith by willfully misinterpreting Landmark's agreement to narrow the request to senior officials to exclude the former Administrator and Deputy Administrator from its search. Landmark submitted a request to EPA for all records concerning any agency rule or regulation for which public notice was not made, but which was contemplated or considered for public notice from January to August, 2012. The request specifically indicated that Landmark was concerned about allegations that the agency was politicizing its rulemaking process. In an email exchange, the agency asked Landmark if it would narrow its search request to senior officials, which the agency's email cited as "Program Administrators, Deputy Administrators, and Chiefs of Staff." Landmark agreed to do so with the understanding that it was not waiving its right to expand the search if warranted by responsive records. EPA then seemed to take inconsistent positions as to whether a search of senior officials included the Office of the Administrator, although the agency contended in court that it had never intended to, nor did it, exclude such officials from the scope of its search. EPA made a final disclosure on April 12, 2013, releasing 1,134 pages in full and 1,658 pages with redactions. However, shortly after that disclosure the agency decided that its search of records from the former Administrator may have been insufficient and conducted a second search. On May 15, the agency disclosed another 800 pages in full and 1,400 pages with redactions. The agency's disclosures yielded at least one document that appeared to have been sent from a personal email account. Lamberth agreed that based on at least the one concrete example, as well as allegations in the media and Congress, Landmark had raised an issue of genuine material fact as to whether other personal email records existed. Pointing out that the agency had done nothing to clarify this matter, he indicated that "in response, EPA's silence speaks volumes; its failure to deny the allegations that personal accounts were being used to conduct official business leaves open the possibility that they were." Further, he noted, "the record leaves open the possibility that, one way or another, the agency engaged in bad faith conduct by excluding the top politically appointed leaders of the EPA from Landmark's FOIA request at least initially." He observed that "the possibility that EPA engaged in such an apparently bad faith interpretation, raised by Landmark's allegations and supported by EPA's inconsistent filings, precludes this Court from entering summary judgment in their favor as to the adequacy of the search." Ordering discovery limited to these two issues, Lamberth indicated that "the possibility that unsearched personal email accounts may have been used for official business raises the possibility that leaders in the EPA may have purposefully attempted to skirt disclosure under the FOIA. The possibility that the agency purposefully excluded the top leaders of the EPA from the search, at least initially, suggests an unreasonable and bad faith reading of Landmark's FOIA request and subsequent agreement to narrow its scope." He added that "moreover, the EPA's briefing and affidavits on the facts and circumstances surrounding the second point contain numerous inconsistencies and reversals which undermine confidence in their truthfulness."
Opinion/Order [69]Issues: Litigation - Discovery FOIA Project Annotation: In exceedingly blunt terms, Judge Royce Lamberth has lambasted the EPA's failure to search for emails responsive to Landmark Legal Foundation's FOIA request for communications involving senior agency officials suggesting that EPA regulations should be slowed down until after the 2012 election. The Office of General Counsel issued a litigation hold for any potentially relevant information, including electronically-stored information. The request was then forwarded to agency FOIA coordinators. But for unexplained reasons, the request was not sent to Aaron Dickerson, Special Assistant to then-Administrator Lisa Jackson, or Nena Jones, Special Assistant to then-Deputy Administrator Robert Perciasepe for another three weeks�"after the November 2012 election�"even though Perciasepe was considered one of the most likely agency officials to have responsive records because he had been the agency point person in dealing with OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Shortly before it was scheduled to file its summary judgment motion, EPA notified Lamberth that it had discovered an additional 365 potentially responsive pages that needed reviewing. Those documents were apparently uncovered because staff reviewing the responsive records found emails involving the Administrator and Deputy Administrator in records from other EPA employees but had discovered no records that actually originated with the Administrator and Deputy Administrator. The agency ultimately required three searches and by the time Lamberth ruled it was still unclear whether all responsive records from the Administrator, Deputy Administrator, and Chief of Staff had been adequately searched or whether any potentially responsive records had been deleted after those officials left the agency in 2013. Dickerson searched Jackson's alias email account, but he did not search her personal email account. Shaw apparently ignored the request and left the agency in April 2013. When the agency alerted Lamberth that it had conducted a supplemental search and discovered a large number of responsive records that needed to be reviewed, it also told him for the first time that the Chief of Staff's records had not been searched. Lamberth permitted Landmark to take discovery and a number of EPA officials and FOIA staffers were deposed. Landmark eventually filed a motion asking Lamberth to levy punitive sanctions against the agency for spoliation. Lamberth found Landmark had not shown bad faith in the processing of its request. He noted that "there is no doubt that EPA's behavior following Landmark's August 2012 FOIA request raised a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing." He observed that "yet after months of discovery pertaining to EPA's search process, Landmark has uncovered insufficient evidence that EPA actually failed to preserve responsive documents in bad faith. And without demonstrating that EPA spoliated documents with the culpable state of mind necessary for punitive sanctions, Landmark cannot ask the Court to infer the relevance of any potentially missing documents. Devoid of at least a favorable inference of relevance, Landmark has no claim for punitive spoliation." Lamberth added that "while the existing record in this case does not support a holding that EPA acted in bad faith, it is obvious to this Court that EPA has, once again, fumbled its way through its legally unambiguous FOIA obligations" He lamented that the agency was not apologetic about its behavior. He observed that "during what should be a concerted effort to reaffirm the public's trust in the EPA, the agency's general refusal to accept responsibility for its mistakes throughout this case is baffling." Lamberth reserved his most critical comments for Shaw. He noted that "at best, Shaw demonstrated utter indifference to EPA's FOIA obligations. At worst, Shaw is lying." In her affidavit, Shaw explained that she had eventually conducted a search of the Deputy Administrator's Office and had unsuccessfully tried to upload responsive records twice to the EPA collection database for Landmark's request. When that failed, she printed the responsive documents, but apparently did not remember what she did with them. Lamberth observed that "such an assertion is about as close to a sworn 'dog ate my homework' statement as one can make." EPA's policy on email retention allowed staffers to delete email from personal accounts once the email had been forwarded to their agency accounts. Troubled by this policy, Lamberth observed that "all mainstream email providers�"personal or business�"provide storage mechanisms that are not time-consuming, such as tagging, foldering, or some other means to quickly warehouse emails. Requiring EPA employees to both forward and preserve business-related information received within or sent from personal email accounts would not impose an undue burden on agency staff and, more importantly, would foster greater public confidence in the agency's professed desire for transparency." Lamberth concluded that "at bottom, EPA's mishandling of Landmark's request leaves far too much room for a reasonable observer to suspect misconduct. However, general negligence and indifference in handling a request, without at least clear and convincing evidence of bad faith failure to preserve responsive documents, is insufficient for a finding of punitive spoliation sanctions. . .[T]he recurrent instances of disregard that EPA employees display for FOIA obligations should not be tolerated by the agency at large. . .This Court would implore the Executive Branch to take greater responsibility in ensuring that all EPA FOIA requests�"regardless of the political affiliation of the requester�"are treated with equal respect and conscientiousness."
Issues: Adequacy - Search | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| EPA's Answer to Complaint Stmt OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES in support OF Plaintiff's Motion | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
