Case Detail
| Case Title | HARDY v. BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES et al | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | District of Columbia | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Washington, DC | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 1:2015cv01649 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2015-10-07 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2017-11-13 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | DAVID T. HARDY | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Description | David Hardy, an attorney and blogger on firearms law issues, submitted a FOIA request to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for records concerning various firearms laws and regulations. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request, but had not yet responded. Hardy also submitted a FOIA request to the Justice Department's Office of Inspector General for records related to a 2007 OIG report about the BATF. OIG also failed to respond to Hardy's request. He then filed suit on both requests. Complaint issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation - Vaughn index, Litigation - Attorney's fees | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE - OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Complaint attachment 3 Complaint attachment 4 Opinion/Order [31] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Beryl Howell has provided a nuanced explanation of why the deliberative process privilege applies in some situations, but not in others, although the documents may seem closely related. Ruling in a case brought by David Hardy, an attorney and internet blogger who writes on information relating to firearms law issues, Howell found that a number of claims made by the Inspector General at the Justice Department for records relating to a 2007 report entitled "The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record, June 2007," exploring the effectiveness of the agency's database through interviews, data analyses and document reviews, as well as an electronic survey and an onsite visit, did not qualify under the privilege. By the time she ruled, Howell had divided 511 pages processed by OIG into three categories: (1) records of interviews and notes of telephone interviews, (2) records related to surveys, and (3) miscellaneous work papers. Howell noted initially that "OIG appears to suggest a blanket rule covering all the documents, asserting that even if the documents contain purely factual information, they were produced in preparation for a final public report and thus are non-disclosable." But Howell indicated that "at issue, is whether for each contested document withheld in part or in full, the declarations establish (1) 'what deliberative process is involved,' (2) 'the role played by the document in issue in the course of that process,' and (3) 'the nature of the decisionmaking authority vested in the office or person issuing the disputed document, and the positions in the chain of command of the parties to the documents.'" Turning to the interview notes, Howell pointed out that "to the extent information in the documents includes 'recommendations' or 'opinions on legal or policy matters,' they are clearly 'deliberative' in nature and non-disclosure is permissible under Exemption 5." She added that "even if the documents contain 'purely factual material,' that information is still covered by Exemption 5 because it would reveal the agency's deliberative process." She then observed that "for this reason, interview notes and summaries are routinely found to be subject to Exemption 5." She explained that "as the records of interviews and interview notes constitute information 'line-level inspectors believed were relevant' from the interviews they conducted, the inspectors would have had to 'extract pertinent material' from a larger universe of facts and thus the documents reflect an 'exercise of judgment as to what issues' seemed most 'relevant' to those inspectors to 'pre-decisional findings and recommendations.'" Howell rejected the agency's claim that since a small number of individuals had been interviewed, disclosure would increase the chance of identification. Howell noted that "that argument is not persuasive." She pointed out that "in this case, OIG interviewed 72 individuals, far from a 'relatively small number' of employees, including over 50 ATF officials and staff members, whose titles and locations are fully disclosed in the report. Given the significant number of interviewees, and the availability of redacting identifying information from the documents, the possibility of linking any individual to a particular document is not a colorable risk that would warrant withholding. Thus, this rationale does not support the application of Exemption 5." Addressing the records related to OIG's survey, Howell explained that "survey data is quintessentially factual information that reveals little about an agency's deliberative process." She indicated that OIG sent the electronic survey to 609 ATF Industry Operations Investigators, of which 334 responded. She pointed out that "OIG released portions of the survey results in the final report, including aggregate data from the multiple-choice questions as well as numerous direct quotations from the narrative responses." Howell noted that "given that OIG has already produced in the NFRTR Report the survey questions in their entirety, and the results and data in part, to withhold the remaining survey results and data, OIG must explain how the withheld information is 'different from those released in any relevant respect.'" She added that "further, the 'Survey Results' and 'Final Survey Data' are anonymized collections of information from 334 individuals and, thus, disclosure of the results and data could not be used to identify any particular respondent. Even quotes from narrative responses to questions from the survey cannot be tied to any particular survey respondent. Therefore, public disclosure is unlikely 'in the future to stifle honest and frank communication within the agency.'" Howell questioned the agency's claim that a document entitled "Final Survey Data Analysis" was either predecisional or deliberative. She pointed out that "OIG does not describe with any specificity (1) the type of information contained in the documentsďż˝"whether merely collative of survey results or actually evaluative; (2) the particular role the documents played in any agency deliberations prior to or during the drafting of the NFRTR Report; or (3) 'the nature of the decisionmaking authority vested in the office or person issuing the disputed documents, and the positions in the chain of command of the parties to the documents.' In short, OIG has not provided sufficient information for the Court to determine, one way or the other, whether these documents are protected by Exemption 5." The agency argued that disclosure could create confusion with the public. Rejecting the claim, Howell noted that "OIG has raised no concern about the 'Final Survey Data Analysis' document being 'erroneous or incomplete.' Moreover, as the final report has already been released, the disclosure of this document now would not result in the 'premature exposure' of any agency decision or policy. Finally, the 'confusion' rationale 'has special force with respect to disclosure of agency positions or reasoning concerning proposed policies.' Here, OIG is not promulgating a 'policy,' it has merely released a report about the adequacy of another agency's record-keeping. Thus, if the 'Final Survey Data Analysis' document was released, there is no risk that the public would be confused about the grounds for an agency's policy." Howell found that an "Interview Workpaper" was protected by Exemption 5, but that a "Workpaper Index and Assignments Worksheet" was not. As to the "Interview Workpaper," she observed that "even if the document contains purely factual material derived from interview notes, this document was prepared by 'culling' information 'from a much larger universe of facts,' namely the interviews, and thus 'reflects an exercise of judgement.' Indeed, the document is a 'spreadsheet' that analyzes the very interview responses this Court has already held to be deliberative." Finding the "Workpaper Index and Assignment Worksheet" was not protected, Howell indicated that "given that the NFRTR Report already divulges significant information about who was interviewed, how many interviews were conducted, and where they were conducted, along with information about how other data was collected, OIG has not explained why the disclosure of the 'log of all interviews and other data collected' must be withheld in full." She added that "at a minimum, OIG has failed to explain how the information in the 'Workpaper Index and Assignments Worksheet' differs so significantly from the publicly released information as to implicate adversely the interests to be protected by Exemption 5." She also faulted the agency's claims that email and document summaries were privileged. She pointed out that "OIG does not explain who drafted the email summary, who the emails were from and to whom they were sent, or how they were used in drafting the report. OIG's declarant describes the 'Document Summary' as 'containing information the OIG reviewed in the course of preparing the NFRTR Report.' This description is patently inadequate, however, as it would apply to every document and piece of information reviewed by OIG for the NFRTR Report, including the portions of documents OIG already disclosed. If this rationale were sufficient to exempt material under Exemption 5, no information could ever be released."
Opinion/Order [41]Issues: Exemption 5 - Privileges - Deliberative process privilege - Predecisional, Exemption 5 - Privileges - Deliberative process privilege - Deliberative FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Beryl Howell has ruled that David Hardy, an attorney and Internet blogger on firearms policy, is entitled to $20,095.95 in attorney's fees from the Department of Justice's Office of Inspector General, but is not entitled to fees from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms because he did not show that his suit against that agency caused it to disclose responsive records. Hardy submitted FOIA requests to OIG and BATF for records on BATF's policies on registered handguns and a 2007 OIG report on the agency's National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record. OIG told Hardy that the records he requested were protected by Exemption 5 (deliberative process privilege). OIG eventually withheld 60 documents, three of which Howell ultimately ordered the agency to disclose. OIG also disclosed five other documents for which Howell found the agency had failed to substantiate its claim of exemption. BATF disclosed 539 documents. Hardy filed a motion for attorney's fees, arguing that his litigation had caused the agencies to disclose the records. However, Howell accepted BATF's reasons for its delay in responding to Hardy's request, finding that Hardy's litigation was not the cause of the agency's disclosure. She noted that in Codrea v. BATFâ€"another attorney's fees case against BATF â€" she had found that the agency experienced a substantial backlog processing FOIA requests and congressional requests for the "Fast and Furious" records. She pointed out that "ATF has fully explained that the delays due were due to backlog and other projects and has provided a sufficient description of the administrative difficulties to establish that causation is lacking here." As to OIG, she observed that "both the fact that OIG produced records when a scheduling order was in place, after initially declining to do so, and the fact the plaintiff 'obtained relief through. . .a judicial order, by partial grant of the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment,' establishes that the plaintiff is eligible for fees from OIG." Howell found that disclosure of the records from OIG was in the public interest. She rejected the agency's claim that Hardy had a commercial interest in the records. She pointed out that "the plaintiff has already blogged about the documents he received, and his past publications indicate his scholarly interest in the topic. He has shared the information he received with 'law professors and attorneys interested in the right to arms and in firearms law,' and he did not charge fees for that distribution." She indicated that Hardy "is entitled to fees for time spent reviewing the adequacy of the defendants' production to determine how to proceed in this litigation." She agreed with the agency that Hardy had a limited degree of success and reduced his fee request by sixty percent. She found that Hardy was eligible for fees on fees â€" fees for litigating the attorney's fees issue â€" but found that "the same reduction will be applied to the plaintiff's fee request for fee litigation."
Issues: Litigation - Attorney's fees - Eligibility - Causal effect, Litigation - Attorney's fees - Entitlement - Commercial interest, Litigation - Attorney's fees - Entitlement - Reasonable Basis for Withholding | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
