Case Detail
| Case Title | HALL & ASSOCIATES v. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | District of Columbia | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Washington, DC | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 1:2019cv01095 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2019-04-18 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2020-08-12 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Judge Rudolph Contreras | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | HALL & ASSOCIATES | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Description | Hall & Associates submitted a FOIA request to the EPA in 2018 for records concerning the email distribution list used for sending out emails pertaining to an agency email entitled Prepare for Harmful Algae Blooms. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request and asked Hall & Associates for $300 to cover the costs of processing the request. Hall & Associates filed an administrative appeal challenging the agency's practice of requesting excessive fees. The agency ultimately disclosed the list but refused to disclose email addresses where the domain name suggested that they were personal under Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy). In 2019, Hall & Associates also submitted a FOIA request for the email distribution list pertaining to an email announcing a webinar on water quality issues. After hearing nothing further from the agency pertaining to either request, Hall & Associates filed suit. Complaint issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Fees, Litigation - Attorney's fees | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Complaint attachment 3 Opinion/Order [17] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Rudolph Contreras has ruled that the EPA properly withheld two email lists used to send email communications to individual users who had voluntarily signed up to receive periodic communications from the Water Security Division and/or the Office of Water under Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy). An email entitled "Prepare for Harmful Algal Blooms" was sent to an email list containing 19,000 email addresses, while one with the subject line "Conestoga River Watershed" was sent to an email list of 47,000 email addresses. In response to Hall & Associate's request for the Algal Blooms communication, the EPA redacted email addresses while leaving the names associated with the addresses. The agency also charged Hall & Associates $98 for the cost of producing the redacted list. In response to Hall & Associate's request for the Conestoga River Watershed communication, the agency withheld the full distribution list â€" which did not include names of individuals or organizations associated with the email addresses. Contreras explained the analytical difference between privately held and publicly available email addresses. He pointed out that "Courts in this District have routinely held that release of privately held email addresses would implicate a privacy interests," but noted that "publicly available email addresses, however, do not implicate a privacy interest protected by Exemption 6. For a publicly available address, unsolicited contact might actually serve the interests of the account owner as a means to develop business." Contreras rejected Hall & Associate's contention that the threat of disclosure of email addresses was no more than de minimis. Instead, Contreras noted that "while unwanted emails can be dealt with in short order, that does not change the interest individuals have in keeping their email addresses private and controlling the dissemination of that information." He disagreed that disclosure of the email addresses would shed light on government activities. Rather, he observed that "appearing on these distribution lists does not suggest any desire to influence the agency and is a function of actions taken by the owners of the email addresses. As such, more is revealed about the interests of those owners rather than about how or whether EPA is performing its statutory duties." Contreras explained that 'the interest in controlling the dissemination of private email addresses outweighs the virtually nonexistent public interest in disclosure. Disclosure of the privately held email addresses, which would allow Plaintiff and any other party to immediately contact the individual owners of the addresses, does not serve. . .Plaintiff's proffered public interests in disclosure." Contreras also assessed whether EPA had appropriately considered segregability in deciding not to try to separate out business addresses. He noted that "given the presumption in EPA's favor, the Court's finding regarding the lack of public interest in disclosure of the distribution lists, and the very small percentage of potentially non-exempt email addresses, EPA's declarations sufficiently fulfill its segregability obligations. Although a literal line-by-line review has not been conducted, the Court is satisfied that EPA's method supports its claim that any non-exempt information is not reasonably segregable."
Issues: Exemption 6 - Invasion of privacy, Segregability | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
