Case Detail
Case Title | CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
District | District of Columbia | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
City | Washington, DC | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Number | 1:2006cv00743 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Filed | 2006-04-24 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Closed | 2007-03-22 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Judge | Judge Rosemary M. Collyer | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Plaintiff | CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Description | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington submitted a FOIA request to the Department of Labor for records concerning Richard Berman or Berman & Company. CREW also requested a fee waiver. Several components of the agency told CREW that they found no records. After hearing nothing more concerning its request, CREW filed suit. Complaint issues: Litigation - Attorney's fees, Failure to respond within statutory time limit | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Opinion/Order [16] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Rosemary Collyer has ruled that the Labor Department properly redacted information from several emails that was protected by Exemption 5 (deliberative process privilege). Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington made a request to the agency for any information it had on contacts with Richard Berman, a lobbyist whose views were strongly anti-union. The agency came back with a handful of emails and redacted part of them. CREW argued that most of the redacted information appeared to be factual based on its context. But Collyer noted that CREW's claims were purely speculative and that the agency's affidavit clearly explained that the redacted portions pertained to advice and recommendations. Concerning an email in which a Labor official provided advice on how to respond to an article about Berman's organization, the Center for Union Facts, that had appeared in the New York Times, CREW argued that the response dealt with politics rather than policy. Disagreeing, Collyer noted that "DOL plays a critical role as a neutral in its oversight of union finances. If, as CREW alleges, the Center for Union Facts is 'stridently anti-union,' the Secretary's relationship with it would certainly raise policy issues." Another email dealt with how to respond to Berman's request for funding. Collyer pointed out that "the redacted materials are predecisional, as they dealt with DOL's attempt to reach a decision regarding how to respond to Mr. Berman's request for support for the First Jobs Institute. The materials are deliberative in that they contain the identification of unresolved issues, questions, opinions, suggestions, advice, and recommendations."
Opinion/Order [17]Issues: Exemption 5 - Privileges - Deliberative process privilege - Deliberative | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
User-contributed Documents | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Docket Events (Hide) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|