Case Detail
Case Title | CORNUCOPIA INSTITUTE v. AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
District | District of Columbia | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
City | Washington, DC | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Number | 1:2016cv00654 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Filed | 2016-04-07 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Closed | Open | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Judge | Judge Rosemary M. Collyer | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Plaintiff | CORNUCOPIA INSTITUTE | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Description | The Cornucopia Institute submitted a FOIA request to the Agricultural Marketing Service for records of investigations conducted by the National Organic Program of three named individuals. The agency located 119 pages. The agency disclosed 28 pages in full, 78 pages in part, and withheld 13 pages. The Cornucopia Institute filed an appeal, but after hearing nothing further from the agency, the Cornucopia Institute filed suit Complaint issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Adequacy - Search, Litigation - Attorney's fees | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Opinion/Order [18] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Rosemary Collyer has ruled that the Agricultural Marketing Service conducted an adequate search in response to a request from the Cornucopia Institute for records of the investigation of Diamond D Organics and that it properly withheld records under Exemption 5 (privileges) and Exemption 7(C) (invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records). The Cornucopia Institute, a public interest farm policy organization, requested records concerning the investigation of Diamond D Organics after seeing references to it in records the Institute had previously received under FOIA. Matthew Michael, the Director of the Enforcement Division; and the specialist in charge of the investigation, searched their computer files for records concerning the investigation of Diamond D Organics. That search located 119 records. The agency disclosed 28 pages in full, 78 pages in part, and withheld 13 pages entirely. Cornucopia appealed the decision and the agency released additional information from nine pages. Michael and the specialist also conducted a second search of hard-copy records. They found an additional 21 pages that were released to Cornucopia with redactions. Cornucopia challenged the agency's description of the search. Collyer found the two affidavits filed by Michael were sufficient to explain the search. She noted that "Cornucopia's argument that the description of the second search is conclusory and vague because Mr. Michael failed to explain 'how they applied those two search terms,' cannot prevail because Cornucopia suggests no greater specificity needed to understand [the search] and none is required. Whether further records might exist is not the test to measure the adequacy of a search." Cornucopia suggested that the second search was conducted specifically because the first search was inadequate. But Collyer pointed out that "the fact that the second search identified further records does not invalidate either search." Finding that several records were properly withheld under the deliberative process privilege, Collyer turned to Cornucopia's claim that records withheld under Exemption 7(C) should be disclosed because they served a general public interest. She observed that "while the Court does not discount a general public interest in full disclosure, that general interest is insufficient to allow the release of identities and personal information of third-party individuals named in the files of the [Diamond D Organics] investigation. This Circuit places a strong priority on maintaining individual privacy rights, unless certain kinds of agency misconduct requires their relaxation. Cornucopia fails to grapple with this precedent and fails to specify anything more than the public's general interest. This does not suffice." She upheld the agency's Exemption 7(C) claims as well.
Issues: Adequacy - Search, Exemption 5 - Privileges, Exemption 7(C) - Invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
User-contributed Documents | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Docket Events (Hide) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|