Case Detail
| Case Title | AMERICAN OVERSIGHT v. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | District of Columbia | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Washington, DC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 1:2018cv00364 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2018-02-16 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2019-04-29 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Judge Timothy J. Kelly | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | AMERICAN OVERSIGHT | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Description | American Oversight submitted three FOIA requests to the EPA for records concerning communications to and from administrator Scott Pruitt and several other staff members with outside parties and congressional staff. The agency acknowledged receipt of the requests but told American Oversight that they did not sufficiently describe records to allow for a search. American Oversight filed administrative appeals of those denials. It also indicated that the agency had denied other organizations' FOIA requests for communications because they were too broad. American Oversight filed suit, alleging that the EPA had a pattern and practice policy of denying requests for communications from officials because they did not sufficiently describe the records sought. Complaint issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Adequacy - Search, Litigation - Attorney's fees | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | U.S. 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 Complaint attachment 8 Complaint attachment 9 Complaint attachment 10 Complaint attachment 11 Complaint attachment 12 Complaint attachment 13 Opinion/Order [28] FOIA Project Annotation: In the most recent case involving allegations that the EPA has a policy or practice of improperly rejecting FOIA requests, Judge Timothy Kelly has ruled that American Oversight has not shown that the agency has a policy of rejecting FOIA requests solely because they do not provide a subject matter or keyword for search purposes. American Oversight submitted several requests for records concerning former administrator Scott Pruitt's internal communications, communications with outside parties, and communications with Congress. Six days later, the agency emailed American Oversight indicating that the requests did not adequately describe the records sought and that the agency needed more clarification. American Oversight responded by telling the agency that it believed the requests were sufficiently described to allow a search. Several weeks later, the agency denied the requests because they did not reasonably describe the records sought. American Oversight filed a consolidated administrative appeal, but then filed suit before the agency responded to its appeal. American Oversight challenged the agency's decision to deny the requests because they were insufficiently described but added a claim that the agency had a policy or practice of routinely denying requests solely on the basis that the records were not sufficiently described. The parties agreed to search parameters for the requests and the EPA produced responsive records as a result. The only claim left was American Oversight's policy or practice of "unlawfully refusing to process a proper FOIA request because it does not provide a keyword or search term." The agency contended that "even if any of American Oversight's requests did adequately describe the records sought, [the EPA's] responses were based on individualized assessments of the request, and not the result of a broader policy or practice that violates FOIA." Kelly pointed out that "American Oversight must demonstrate that the unlawful FOIA policy described is in fact a policy 'adopted, endorsed, or implemented' by the EPA." He found American Oversight had failed to do so here. He noted that "indeed, the EPA's responses to the several FOIA requests identified by American Oversight in its complaint show a practice not of categorically denying any request that lacks keywords or subject matters, but of seeking clarification of requests that the EPA has concluded for various reasons â€" many of which appear to have been justified â€" as not reasonably described." Kelly was puzzled as to why the agency could not begin to search for records responsive to two of the three requests, but explained that "but that response, despite American Oversight's insistence, does not reveal that the determination resulted from a policy of refusing to process requests solely because they lack a keyword or subject matter." Rejecting American Oversight's allegations of a policy or practice of denying requests that did not include keywords, Kelly observed that "at best, the record presents inconsistent case-by-case applications of the requirement that a request reasonably describe the records sought to requests for email records." Kelly indicated that FOIA sometimes required agencies and requesters to discuss the parameters of requests and explained that "such discussions, as this action makes clear, may not always prove successful, and clarification may not always be necessary or warranted. As noted, however, those discussions will necessarily be context-specific, and that will likewise lead to context-specific grounds for denial. And for that very reason, they are generally ill-suited to the type of policy-or-practice claim that American Oversight brings here."
Issues: Litigation - Jurisdiction - Failure to State a Claim | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
