Case Detail
| Case Title | CAUSE OF ACTION INSTITUTE v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | District of Columbia | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Washington, DC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 1:2017cv01423 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2017-07-18 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2018-09-13 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Judge James E. Boasberg | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | CAUSE OF ACTION INSTITUTE | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Description | Cause of Action Institute submitted a FOIA request to the Department of Justice for records concerning Rep. Jeb Hensarling's directive for agencies to treat all records sent to his Committee on Financial Services as congressional records rather than agency records. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request, but after hearing nothing further from the agency, Cause of Action Institute filed suit. Complaint issues: Litigation - Attorney's fees, Failure to respond within statutory time limit | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Complaint attachment 3 Complaint attachment 4 Complaint attachment 5 Complaint attachment 6 Opinion/Order [23] FOIA Project Annotation: In a case brought by Cause of Action Institute to uncover the effects of a letter sent to agencies by Rep. Jeb Hensarling, chair of the House Committee on Financial Services, instructing agencies to treat communications with the committee as congressional records rather than agency records, Judge James Boasberg has ruled that while some of the Exemption 5 (privileges) claims made by the Department of Justice are appropriate, others are not protected by either the attorney-client privilege or the deliberative process privilege. DOJ initially disclosed five pages and later discovered another 11 responsive pages. The agency disclosed the records with redactions under Exemption 5. Cause of Action did not challenge the adequacy of the search but did contest the breadth of the agency's privilege claims. DOJ withheld the bulk of two emails from the White House Counsel's Office to the Director of the Office of Information Policy. The email began with "FYI â€" the administration has received several letters like the attached." DOJ redacted the following sentence and the entire attached letter, claiming it was covered by the attorney-client privilege. After reviewing the records in camera, Boasberg disagreed. He noted that "nowhere does the White House directly ask for legal advice in the email, nor is there any other statement that can even be fairly construed as a solicitation of legal counsel. Rather, the body of the email begins with the acronym 'FYI,' which the Court, like the parties, takes to mean 'for your information.' This statement gives the email the appearance of a simple alert to another government employee and not a communication whose 'primary purpose' is securing legal advice." DOJ argued that OIP routinely provided legal advice to agencies on FOIA-related issues. Boasberg, however, explained that "the fact that OIP is in the business of sometimes â€" or even 'routinely' â€" providing legal advice is insufficient when, as here, the provision of legal services is not the office's sole duty. It is Justice's burden to show that this particular communication involved a request for legal advice." He pointed out that "the 'context of the email' to which the Government refers only reveals coordination between the White House and OIP on a response to the congressional instruction. It does not establish that the purpose of this communication was legal in nature." He added that "even if the Court were to assume that obtaining legal advice was one of the White House's objectives in reaching out to OIP, DOJ might nevertheless still fail to carry its burden. That a conversation has some legal nexus is insufficient: the party seeking the protection of the attorney-client privilege must show that securing legal advice was a 'primary objective.' [T]he email's language cuts against any inference that the communication primarily concerned a request for legal counsel, rather than mere coordination on a strategy or policy amongst government agencies." An email chain from an agency seeking legal advice from the Office of Legal Counsel fared better. Here, Boasberg pointed out that "the sending of the document to legal counsel for the purpose of review, accordingly, means that the draft falls within the scope of the privilege and is entitled to protection." Cause of Action challenged whether confidentiality was appropriate where the agencies' motive for seeking legal advice was public. But Boasberg noted that "the Institute has learned the identity of the twelve agencies that received the letter. It remains in the dark only as to which of these twelve actually sought OLC's counsel in these communications. That Plaintiff has some pieces of the puzzle, however, does not justify revealing the complete picture. Divulging the client's identity would still disclose that the agency acted on a particular 'motive. . .in seeking representation.'" Cause of Action argued that including the Office of Legislative Affairs on the email waived the privilege. Boasberg indicated that "OLA is an organization within the executive branch, and the matter at issue concerned an agency's response to congressional correspondence, which is directly in OLA's wheelhouse. The disclosure of communications to OLA thus did not waive the privilege." Boasberg found that the email from the White House counsel to OIP was predecisional, but that it was not deliberative. He pointed out that "as the Court's review makes clear, the communications here reveal no 'deliberative process' that could 'expose the agency's policy deliberations to unwarranted scrutiny.' Absent more, the privilege cannot apply. A record is not protected merely by virtue of being a relevant predecisional communication."
Issues: Exemption 5 - Privileges - Deliberative process privilege - Predecisional, Exemption 5 - Privileges - Deliberative process privilege - Deliberative | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
