Case Detail
| Case Title | Milner v. United States Department of Defense et al | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | Western District of Washington | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Seattle | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 2:2014cv01032 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2014-07-09 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2015-08-11 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Judge Robert S. Lasnik | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | Glen Scott Milner | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Description | Glen Milner submitted a FOIA request to the Department of Defense for records related to review or approval by DOD's Explosive Safety Board for the Navy's planned second Explosives Handling Wharf at Naval Base Kitnap-Bangor. Milner requested expedited processing and a fee waiver. DOD denied Milner's request for expedited processing and a fee waiver and said it would not be able to respond within the statutory 20 days. The agency provided Milner with a fee estimate of $13,000 for search time. After finally denying Milner's appeal of its original denial of his request for expedited processing, the agency disclosed three heavily redacted records containing 23 pages, with redactions made primarily under Exemption 5 (privileges). The agency agreed to conduct a new search, but after being granted some further information on appeal, Milner was still unsatisfied and filed suit. Complaint issues: Adequacy - Search | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | United States Department of Defense | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | Department of Defense Explosives Safety Board | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | Department of Defense Office of Freedom of Information | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | Office of the Secretary of Defense | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Opinion/Order [29] FOIA Project Annotation: A federal court in Washington has ruled that the Defense Department properly withheld portions of several records disclosed to Glen Milner pertaining to plans for a second Explosive Handling Wharf at Naval Base Kitsap-Bangor under Exemption 3 (other statutes), but that it has failed to show that its further redactions under Exemption 5 (deliberative process privilege) and Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy) were appropriate. The court also found the agency's refusal to process records disclosed to Milner in a prior suit he brought against DOD to force it to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act constituted an improper search. Milner requested records pertaining to the approval of construction of a second handling wharf. DOD eventually disclosed three redacted documents. Milner appealed, which resulted in some redactions being removed and remand to the agency for a new search. At the time of the agency's final disclosure, it indicated it would not search for records previously released to Milner as part of his NEPA action. The agency withheld some records under 10 U.S.C. § 130e, which allows the agency to withhold DOD critical infrastructure security information where the public interest in disclosure does not outweigh the security interests in non-disclosure. Milner argued that the planning documents did not qualify as critical infrastructure security information. The court rejected his claim, noting that "the fact that a document reflects explosive safety information regarding a planned storage and handling facility may make it less likely that information will actually be exploited, but, if it were exploited, havoc would likely ensue." Milner also pointed to DOD guidance indicating that the agency should provide a requester an opportunity to make a public interest argument for disclosure when the agency invoked § 130e. The court observed, however, that "while the Department's memorandum sets forth a procedure which, if followed, would likely result in a more informed and accurate balancing of the relevant issues, it reflects an internal agency procedure lacking the force of law. Plaintiff has not shown that the guidelines created a right or benefit in his favor or that he otherwise has standing to enforce an internal policy." DOD withheld large portions of two documents containing questions and answers under Exemption 5. While the court agreed that the Q&As were predecisional, it found they were not deliberative. The court pointed out that "the affidavit on which the Department relies does not show that the documents contain policy proposals or analysis, recommendations, critiques, or opinions regarding the logistical data collected. The simple compilation of information necessary to inform a later decisionmaking process can hardly be described as 'deliberative.'" Milner challenged the redaction of personal information because the agency had not shown the rank of individuals whose personal information was protected. The court indicated that it "will not impose a requirement that all redactions under Exemption 6 be accompanied by a statement regarding the individual's rank or grade. The Department must, however, clearly state that only the names and contact information of individuals who are at the military rank of Colonel or below and at a rank of GS-15 or below have been redacted." The court rejected the agency's assertion that it did not have to search the records disclosed to Milner during his NEPA litigation. The court pointed out that "the Department makes no attempt to show that it would be unreasonably difficult to conduct a search of all of the accessible documents and either produce them or identify relevant exemptions. To the extent the Department seeks a blanket exclusion for all publicly-available documents, the argument is rejected: the documents are agency records and must, therefore, be made available absent an applicable exemption."
Issues: Exemption 3 - Statutory prohibition of disclosure, Exemption 5 - Privileges - Deliberative process privilege - Deliberative, Exemption 6 - Invasion of privacy, Adequacy - Search | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
