Case Detail
Case Title | MISSOURI COALITION FOR THE ENVIRONMENT v. U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
District | District of Columbia | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
City | Washington, DC | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Number | 1:2018cv00663 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Filed | 2018-03-23 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Closed | 2019-03-28 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Judge | Judge Timothy J. Kelly | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Plaintiff | MISSOURI COALITION FOR THE ENVIRONMENT | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Description | The Missouri Coalition for the Environment submitted five FOIA requests to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for records concerning pending permit applications in the St. Louis and Little Rock area. The agency acknowledged receipt of the requests and responded to all of them, withholding some documents under Exemption 5 (privileges). MCE then filed suit, alleging the agency had a policy or practice of withholding such records even though they had been disclosed as the result of prior litigation. Complaint issues: Litigation - Attorney's fees | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Opinion/Order [24] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Timothy Kelly has ruled that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had an improper policy or practice of claiming that Exemption 5 (privileges) applied to pending Clean Water Act permit applications and then admitting its error and disclosing the records once the Missouri Coalition for the Environment filed suit. The Coalition told Kelly that at least six of its requests handled by either the St. Louis or Little Rock districts involved initial claims that portions of pending permit applications were protected by the deliberative process privilege that were dropped once MCE filed suit. The agency admitted its error but argued that these were isolated instances and did not constitute a policy or practice. However, Kelly found MCE's evidence overwhelming. He noted that "the Corps' record of repeated and almost identical FOIA violations leads to the unavoidable conclusion that its decisions resulted from a policy or practice to withhold materials in the application files of pending [CWA] permit applications, even if those materials were not inter- or intra-agency records. The Court cannot reasonably conclude that those decisions were isolated mistakes. And because, as the parties agree, withholding materials on that basis violates FOIA, the policy or practice is unlawful." Although the agency argued that the improper withholdings were mistakes and did not rise to the level of a policy or practice, Kelly indicated that the agency's declarations did not support that conclusion. He pointed out that "it is also telling that the Corps has provided no examples of times when it did release non-agency records in application files for pending [CWA] permits. If, as the Corps now claims, the improper withholdings under Exemption 5 were merely isolated mistakes, examples of times when it released the application files for pending permits should abound. But the Corps offers none." The agency also urged Kelly to judge the handful of mistakes in the two districts separately. Instead, Kelly noted that "a plaintiff need not proffer instances of an alleged policy or practice in every single Corps district to show that a policy or practice exists." He added that "if anything, the fact that MCE received unlawful responses from two different Corps districts only further evidences that the Corps maintained a policy or practice and that the decisions to withhold the records at issue were not isolated mistakes." Kelly declined MCE's request for injunctive relief, pointing out that "even if an agency maintains an unlawful policy or practice such that a FOIA plaintiff is entitled to declaratory relief, the heightened remedy of injunctive relief is not necessarily appropriate." He found that the agency had recognized that its policy was incorrect and taken steps to release such records in the future.
Issues: Litigation - Jurisdiction - Standing | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
User-contributed Documents | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Docket Events (Hide) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|