Case Detail
| Case Title | CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON v. U.S. POSTAL SERVICE | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | District of Columbia | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Washington, DC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 1:2020cv02927 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2020-10-13 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2021-12-03 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Judge John D. Bates | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Description | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington submitted a FOIA request to U.S. Postal Service for records concerning ethics agreements and guidance pertaining to Postmaster Paul DeJoy. CREW also requested a fee waiver. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request. The agency told CREW it had found 11 responsive pages but was withholding them all under Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy). CREW filed an administrative appeal of the denial. After hearing nothing further from the agency, CREW filed suit. Complaint issues: Litigation - Attorney's fees, Failure to respond within statutory time limit | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | U.S. POSTAL SERVICE | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Complaint attachment 3 Complaint attachment 4 Opinion/Order [21] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge John Bates has ruled that the U.S. Postal Service failed to show that seven documents it withheld from CREW were protected by Exemption 3 (other statutes), Exemption 5 (privileges), and Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy) concerning Postmaster General Louis DeJoy's conflicts of interests arising out of his investments in USPS contractors and competitors. USPS located seven responsive documents â€" four of which pertained to a request for a certificate of divestiture for DeJoy, while the other three documents related to DeJoy's recusal from USPS matters in which he had a conflict of interest. CREW filed an administrative appeal, but USPS affirmed its denial. The agency claimed 39 U.S.C. § 410(c)(2) of the Postal Reorganization Act, which allows the agency to withhold information of a commercial nature, which under good business practice would not normally be disclosed to the public, as an Exemption 3 statute. Bates observed that the case law applying this provision indicated that "commercial records contain the kind of information that a private company not subject to FOIA would seek to protect to maintain a competitive advantage." But Bates noted that "here, the withheld documents detailing DeJoy's financial disclosures, recusal and divestiture obligations, and related communications with [the Office of Government Ethics] are government-specific documents regarding USPS's accountability to the public, not its business operations. By documenting the postmaster general's financial ties in an effort to avoid conflicts of interest and maintain public trust in the agency, USPS is acting in its 'public character' by providing a governmental service accountable to the taxpayers who fund its operations." He indicated that "but there can be little doubt that the proccesual documentation of DeJoy's ethical compliance 'reflects directly on what the government is up to â€" the core of what FOIA was designed to address.'" USPS argued that if the information was disclosed "it would have difficulty attracting qualified candidates for agency positions if it were required to disclose their financial information obtained in connection with ethics compliance." But Bates explained that "the requested materials were only generated because of ethical rules applicable to federal employment and are not the type of commercial information the PRA seeks to protect." He noted that 'because the Court finds that the requested materials fall outside the PRA's definition of commercial information, they cannot be shielded from FOIA disclosure under Exemption 3." The agency also claimed the records were protected by the attorney-client privilege. CREW argued that "the attorney-client privilege does not protect communications between the ethics counsel of a government agency and an agency employee because the 'client' for privilege purposes in that dynamic is the agency itself." Bates also found that since the Ethics in Government Act required public disclosure of such information, disclosure to third parties waived any privilege. He indicated that "without establishing a plausible attorney-client relationship between DeJoy and ethics counsel or accounting for the high likelihood of third-party disclosure of the documents at issue, USPS cannot invoke the attorney-client privilege to shield any of the requested documents under FOIA Exemption 5." Bates found that Exemption 6 did not apply either. He noted that "public inquiries into DeJoy's financial portfolio denote a public interest in matters relating to his conflicts based on 'more than mere speculation,' which therefore warrants 'permitting the public to decide for itself whether government action' on DeJoy's watch 'is proper.'"
Issues: Exemption 3 - Limited agency discretion, Exemption 5 - Privileges - Deliberative process privilege - Deliberative | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
