Case Detail
Case Title | Rocky Mountain Wild v. United States Bureau of Land Management et al | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
District | District of Colorado | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
City | Denver | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Number | 1:2018cv00314 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Filed | 2018-02-08 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Closed | 2020-12-30 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Judge | Judge William J. Martinez | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Plaintiff | Rocky Mountain Wild, Inc. a Colorado non-profit corporation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Description | Rocky Mountain Wild submitted a FOIA request to the Bureau of Land Management for records concerning the impact that leasing land for oil and mineral exploration will have on the Gunnison sage-grouse and other protected species. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request and began to process it. But after hearing nothing further from the agency, Rocky Mountain Wild filed suit. Complaint issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation - Attorney's fees | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | United States Bureau of Land Management a federal agency | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | United States Department of Interior a federal agency | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Appeal | Tenth Circuit 21-1071 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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 Opinion/Order [20] FOIA Project Annotation: A federal court in Colorado has ruled that Rocky Mountain Wild has failed to state a claim for relief pertaining to its FOIA suit against the Bureau of Land Management since the agency has now responded and there is no evidence of a policy or practice on the part of the agency to delay processing the organization's FOIA requests. Rocky Mountain Wild submitted a FOIA request for records concerning the agency's proposed March 2018 oil and gas leasing of specified parcels. The agency took a 10-day extension and after 30 days provided an interim response of 140 pages. Three weeks later, BLM disclosed a final response containing 1,595 pages. Rocky Mountain Wild then filed suit, claiming that the agency had missed the statutory deadline, that the agency's behavior required referral to the Office of Special Counsel for sanctions, and that the agency had a policy or practice of failing to respond to requests on time. Rocky Mountain Wild argued that its first claim that the agency had missed its statutory deadline was made to establish constructive exhaustion of remedies. However, the court pointed out that "BLM does not argue that Rocky Mountain Wild failed to exhaust administrative remedies, and in any event an allegation that establishes constructive exhaustion is not a claim for relief, any more than an allegation to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction is a claim for relief." The court pointed out that BLM had mooted Rocky Mountain Wild's timeliness claim by completing its request. The court observed that "BLM went through the normal FOIA process (albeit more slowly than Rocky Mountain Wild would prefer), issued a final determination, and closed the FOIA request. If this Court later determines that BLM improperly withheld documents, it would mean that BLM's 'final determination' was incomplete, but not any less final from the agency's perspective. FOIA requests are not deemed open indefinitely until a court approves the agency's response." The court then pointed out that while Rocky Mountain Wild could ask the court to refer the agency to the Office of Special Counsel for a determination as to whether the agency's behavior should be sanctioned, under FOIA such a process was not available until the court determined that the plaintiff had substantially prevailed and awarded attorney's fees. Dismissing the sanctions claim, the court noted that "a cause of action that cannot be resolved until after judgment is essentially a contradiction in terms. The Court accordingly agrees with BLM that a request for a Special Counsel referral is a remedy, not a cause of action." The court rejected Rocky Mountain Wild's claim that the agency had a policy or practice of misallocating resources that slowed down its ability to respond to FOIA requests, or purposely prolonging responses to prevent public interest groups from meeting public comment deadlines.
Opinion/Order [41]Issues: Litigation - Jurisdiction - Failure to State a Claim FOIA Project Annotation: A federal court in Colorado has ruled that except for its interpretation of the scope of the FOIA request submitted by Rocky Mountain Wild the Bureau of Land Management conducted an adequate search and has rejected Rocky Mountain Wild's request for discovery. Rocky Mountain Wild submitted a FOIA request to BLM's Colorado field office involving proposed oil and gas leasing of parcels in and around occupied Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. The request also referenced seven specific parcels. Based on where the parcels were located, the Colorado field office decided to search the Tres Rios field office and the state office's Branch of Fluid Materials as most likely to have responsive records. The agency disclosed more than 1,700 records in two installments before Rocky Mountain Wild filed suit. The agency then provided a final third installment of 346 pages, some with redactions. The agency also indicated that it was withholding 63 pages in full. The agency conducted a supplemental search which yielded 320 additional pages, redacting 27 pages and withholding 76 pages. Rocky Mountain Wild challenged the adequacy of the search, arguing that the agency should have searched its Washington office as well and should have expanded the search terms. District Court Judge William Martinez \rejected those claims but agreed with Rocky Mountain Wild that the agency had improperly narrowed the scope of the request to only the seven parcels Rocky Mountain Wild referenced. Martinez pointed out that "there is no reasonable basis to think that Rocky Mountain Wild was genuinely interested in only a subset of parcels considered for that lease sale, to the exclusion of any others." Because BLM had agreed to conduct a supplemental search, Rocky Mountain Wild argued that it should have broadened the temporal scope of its search. Rejecting the claim, Martinez noted that "if the Court were to hold in these circumstances that an agreement to conduct a supplemental search obligates the agency to expand the temporal scope of the search vastly beyond the original temporal scope, agencies would have little incentive to pursue the compromise that BLM pursued in this case."
Opinion/Order [47]Issues: Search - Reasonableness of search, Request - Specificity FOIA Project Annotation: A federal court in Colorado has ruled that the Bureau of Land Management conducted an adequate search in response to a 2017 FOIA request from Rock Mountain Wild for records concerning whether specific identified parcels were being considered for oil and gas leases. The list of specific identified parcels was based on BLM's public announcement. The agency conducted searches for the parcel numbers, but in his first ruling in the case, Judge William Martinez faulted the agency for failing to search for records for several parcels that had also been considered but did not make the final list. After Martinez ordered the agency to search for those parcel numbers as well, the agency conducted a second search. That search yielded an additional 37 pages, which were produced to Rocky Mountain Wild. Rocky Mountain Wild argued that the second search was too narrow and that if the agency used the same search terms as in the initial search it would have located more records. Martinez disagreed. He noted that "even assuming that the Court's directive could be liberally construed to include taking new custodians to search for records relating to the New Parcels and the Proposed Parcels, the Court finds that BLM's search was reasonable under the circumstances." The agency staffer who oversaw the second search had decided that two employees who had records responsive to the first stage search were not likely to have any further records because the staffer found their records were duplicative of those collected from the other 30 custodians whose records were searched. Martinez pointed out that "it is conceivable that [those two employees] may have additional documents that have not been captured by the Prior Searches and BLM's search for records relating to the New Parcels. However, 'the issue is not whether any further documents might conceivably exist but rather whether the government's search for responsive documents was adequate, which is determined under a standard of reasonableness, and is dependent upon the circumstances of the case.'" He noted that 'based on the totality of the facts of this case, the Court concludes that BLM acted in good faith and expended extensive efforts to comply with Rocky Mountain Wil's FOIA request and the Court's directive. Rocky Mountain Wild has not produced evidence contradicting the adequacy of BLM's search or evidence of BLM's bad faith. Thus, the Court finds that BLM's search, which was reasonable in scope and intensity, complies with its FOIA obligations."
Issues: Adequacy - Search | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|