Case Detail
| Case Title | ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY PROJECT et al v. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | District of Columbia | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Washington, DC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 1:2013cv01962 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2013-12-09 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2015-08-28 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Judge Christopher R. Cooper | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY PROJECT | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | SIERRA CLUB | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | EARTHJUSTICE | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Description | The Environmental Integrity Project, Earthjustice, and the Sierra Club requested records on a draft regulation proposed by EPA to revise effluent limitation guidelines for the Steam Electric Power Generating Category to reduce coal-powered plant water pollution. The SBA was heavily involved in the inter-agency review of the regulation. The request included records of any inter-agency communications between SBA, EPA, OMB and other agencies. The SBA indicated it found 44 records in this category, but withheld 20 of them under Exemption 5 (privileges). The public interest organizations appealed and SBA disclosed one previously withheld document and referred several documents to EPA and OMB. The public interest groups then filed suit. Complaint issues: improper withholding, attorney's fees | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | WHITE HOUSE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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 Complaint attachment 12 Complaint attachment 13 Complaint attachment 14 Opinion/Order [18] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Christopher Cooper has ruled that a coalition of environmental groups may amend their complaint against the SBA to include OMB as a defendant, but that their complaint against EPA is different enough that it does not qualify for consolidation. Environmental Integrity Project, Earthjustice, and the Sierra Club made a request to the SBA for communications between the agency and interest groups, and communications between the agency, OMB and EPA pertaining to an EPA rulemaking revising effluent limits for steam-powered electric plants. On the same day, the coalition made a request to OMB for similar records. Two months later, the coalition requested a variety of technical data from EPA. The coalition filed suit against the SBA and then sought to amend their complaint to add OMB and EPA as defendants. Agreeing to allow the joinder of OMB, Cooper noted that "plaintiffs' claims against OMB are factually related to their claims against SBA. The groups requested essentially identical categories of records from the two agencies on the same day regarding the same underlying subject matter: inter- and intra-agency communications regarding the Steam Rule. Common questions of law also arise from these requests as SBA and OMB both invoke Exemption 5 to justify their withholdings, which the environmental groups expect to challenge. Although SBA maintains that resolution of its anticipated summary judgment motion would be delayed if OMB is required to search a considerably larger database of records, SBA points to no prejudice it might suffer by waiting a reasonable period of time to move for summary judgment." But he rejected the request to join EPA, pointing out that "the environmental groups' claims against EPA, however, are not sufficiently related to this case to warrant the joinder of EPA as a defendant. Merely because FOIA requests target the same general subject matter, such as the effluent rulemaking here, does not mean they are related for purposes of Rule 20 [of the Rules of Civil Procedure]. The requests to EPA were for specific and voluminous technical data the EPA used in its rulemaking, which is quite different from the inter- and intra-agency communications the environmental groups requests from SBA and OMB. The EPA requests also raise distinct legal issues because the EPA based its withholdings on a different FOIA exemption�"Exemption [4]. And, as both parties acknowledged at the hearing before the Court, there will likely be substantial additional delay caused by EPA's continuing confidential business information determinations under Exemption [4] before the environmental groups' claims against it can be adjudicated."
Opinion/Order [38]Issues: Litigation - Jurisdiction - Proper Party FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Christopher Cooper has ruled that OMB has shown that records it withheld from the Environmental Integrity Project are protected by Exemption 5 (deliberative process privilege), but that the Small Business Administration has not yet substantiated that its records dealing with the same topic were protected by the exemption as well. A coalition of environmental groups filed FOIA requests with OMB and the SBA for records concerning OMB's review of an EPA proposed update to Effluent Limitation Guidelines limiting toxins that may be discharged from coal-fired plants. Both agencies provided a number of records but withheld others under Exemption 5. The Environmental Integrity Project challenged the withholdings, arguing in part that the 1993 E.O. 12866, directing OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs to disclose all documents exchanged with an agency during the regulatory review process, required disclosure even if the records could be considered deliberative. Cooper found the SBA's affidavits insufficient, noting that "SBA's declarations and Vaughn index recite the general elements of the deliberative process privilege without explaining in relative detail how they apply to the documents in question." He added that "such conclusory statements that 'parrot' the case law do not support withholding." Rather than send the case back to the agency for further explanation, Cooper pointed out that "given the small number of withheld documents, however, the Court will attempt to expedite matters by directing SBA to submit the eleven withheld for in camera review." Cooper rejected EIP's argument that E.O. 12866 required OMB to disclose its records. Instead, he observed that the agency's "expectation of confidentiality grows from its long-standing position that E.O. 12866's disclosure requirement applies only to exchanges made by OIRA personnel at the branch-chief level and above. Indeed, Plaintiffs do not contest that OMB has consistently treated staff-level communications with agencies as falling outside the scope of the Order. In light of this policy, the Court has little trouble concluding that the OMB staffers who engaged in the withheld communications here did so with the settled expectation that their communications with agency staff would not be made public." Reviewing the index for a 100-page sample selected by the plaintiffs, Cooper observed that "the listed descriptions confirm that the records reflect candid discussions leading up to the agency's recommendations on the proposed rule."
Opinion/Order [41]Issues: Exemption 5 - Privileges - Deliberative process privilege - Deliberative FOIA Project Annotation: After reviewing the documents in camera, Judge Christopher Cooper has ruled that ten documents the Small Business Administration had claimed were protected by Exemption 5 (deliberative process privilege) fall within the privilege while another email exchange, while pertaining to the subject matter of the request is not substantive enough to qualify as responsive. The case involved a request by the Environmental Integrity Project and the Sierra Club for records concerning the review of EPA's guidelines that limit what toxins can be discharged from coal-fired power plants by OMB and SBA. Cooper had earlier found that records claimed as deliberative by OMB were properly exempt, but that SBA's descriptions were too vague to support its claim. But after reviewing the records in camera, Cooper was convinced that the 11 documents had been properly withheld. He noted that nine of the documents "are classic examples of the types of communications that the deliberative process privilege is designed to protect. These documents reflect SBA's comments related to EPA's methodology, timing, and additional factors for EPA to consider; requests for clarification of draft calculations; analysis of EPA's exemptions and calculations; discussion of commenters' critiques and questions; and suggestions for improving the draft regulations. While finding another email did not fit into this mold, Cooper still found it qualified for the privilege. He pointed out that "releasing this document would, however, likely expose aspects of SBA's decisionmaking process. It discusses the format in which SBA sought various EPA data and indicates how SBA was going about the process of developing its comments." Although the caption of the last email suggested it was related, after reviewing its contents Cooper observed that "its content can best be described as friendly banter. It has nothing to do with the subject matter of Plaintiffs' FOIA request." He concluded that "while SBA may not rely on Exemption 5 to withhold what [the staffer] wrote in his email, as part of the document, SBA may withhold [the staffer's] writing on the grounds that it is non-responsive to Plaintiffs' request."
Issues: Exemption 5 - Privileges | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
