Case Detail
| Case Title | Southern Environmental Law Center v. Bernhardt et al | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | Western District of Virginia | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Charlottesville | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 3:2019cv00011 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2019-02-21 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2020-12-17 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | Southern Environmental Law Center | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Description | The Southern Environmental Law Center submitted a FOIA request to the Department of the Interior for records concerning a National Park Service permit to allow the Atlantic Pipeline to cross the Blue Ridge Parkway. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request and provided two documents. NPS also requested clarification of the request. SELC provided clarification and the agency continued to search for records. After hearing nothing further from the agency, SELC filed suit. Complaint issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation - Vaughn index, Litigation - Attorney's fees | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | David Bernhardt in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of the Department of the Interior | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | Daniel Smith in his official capacity as Deputy Director Exercising Authority of Director for the National Park Service, an agency within the Department of the Interior | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | Daniel Jorjani in his official capacity as Principal Deputy Solicitor Exercising the Authority of Solicitor, the head of the Office of the Solicitor, an agency within the Department of Interior | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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 [26] FOIA Project Annotation: A federal court in Virginia has allowed the Southern Environmental Law Center's pattern or practice claim challenging the Interior Department's revised FOIA regulations to continue. In December 2017, SELC submitted a FOIA request to the National Park Service for records concerning the proposed crossing of the Blue Ridge Parkway or Appalachian National Scenic Trail by the Atlantic Coast Pipeline. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request seven weeks later, producing two responsive documents. It asked SELC to clarify its request in an attempt to narrow its scope. SELC did so. Seven months after submitting its request, SELC filed suit, alleging that three new memos issued by the agency â€" the Awareness Process Memorandum, a Deliberative Process Memorandum, and a Foreseeable Harm Memorandum â€" all issued in December 2017, had contributed to the agency's failure to respond to SELC's request. The agency argued that the court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case because SELC had failed to state a claim for relief. Judge Glen Conrad started by pointing out that both the D.C. Circuit and the Ninth Circuit had recognized pattern or practice claims. Citing Hajro v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 811 F.3d 1086 (9th Cir. 2016), Conrad noted that "the Ninth Circuit addressed the standing requirement applicable to a policy-or-practice claim under FOIA. The Court identified three requirements for establishing an injury in fact when a plaintiff alleges a pattern or practice of FOIA violations and seeks declaratory or injunctive relief: '(1) the agency's FOIA violation was not merely an isolated incident, (2) the plaintiff was personally harmed by the alleged policy, and (3) the plaintiff himself has a sufficient likelihood of future harm by the policy or practice." Conrad observed that "assuming that the Fourth Circuit would adopt the same test, the court concludes that SELC has satisfied each requirement at this stage of the proceedings." Noting that "SELC specifically alleges that the DOI Defendants have formally adopted the policies and practices as reflected in the Memoranda, that 'violate FOIA because they interfere with the agency's responsibility to "promptly" make records available upon request and are inconsistent with the obligation to disclose records unless disclosure would foreseeably harm an interest protected by a statutory exception,'" Conrad pointed out that "for purposes of standing, and without addressing the merits of the policy-or-practice claims, the court concludes that SELC has adequately alleged that the claimed FOIA violations were not isolated incidents." Conrad found harm to SELC as well. He explained that "SELC alleges that its FOIA request was subject to the policies and practices reflected in the Memoranda and that the policies and practices caused or contributed to the delays and withholdings of the records sought by SELC's request. SELC has therefore alleged concrete harm sufficient to establish an injury in fact at the pleading stage." Conrad found SELC had shown likely future harm as well. He pointed out that "in this case, SELC alleges that it regularly submits FOIA requests to DOI agencies, including NPS; that it intends to continue submitting such requests in the future; and that the DOI Defendants' policies will continue to harm SELC's interests unless they are enjoined by this court." Conrad next turned to causation. He explained that "to satisfy this requirement, a plaintiff must allege that its injury in fact is 'fairly traceable' to the defendants' challenged conduct." He noted that "the court is convinced that SELC's allegations, considered in combination, are sufficient to satisfy the causation requirement at the pleading stage." He also found SELC had shown that an injunction would redress its alleged injuries. He rejected the agency's contention that SELC was not eligible for an injunction. He noted that "whether SELC is actually entitled to injunctive relief is a matter that must be resolved on the merits."
Issues: Litigation - Jurisdiction - Failure to State a Claim | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
