Case Detail
| Case Title | LEVINTHAL et al v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | District of Columbia | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Washington, DC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 1:2015cv01624 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2015-10-05 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2016-11-23 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Judge Amit P. Mehta | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | DAVE LEVINTHAL | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | CENTER FOR PUBLIC INTEGRITY | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Description | Dave Levinthal, an investigative reporter for the Center for Public Integrity, submitted a FOIA request to the Federal Election Commission for a copy of a 2015 report by the National Institute of Standards and Technology pertaining to the FEC's operations. Levinthal also requested any records related to the NIST report. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request, but did not respond within the statutory time limit. Levinthal filed an administrative appeal which was denied. He then filed suit. Complaint issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation - Attorney's fees | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Complaint attachment 3 Complaint attachment 4 Opinion/Order [20] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Amit Mehta has ruled that a report prepared by SD Solutions evaluating the FEC's IT systems in light of security guidelines published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology qualifies for protection under Exemption 7(E) (investigative methods and techniques). Dave Levinthal, an investigative reporter for the Center for Public Integrity, requested the NIST Study and any records mentioning it. The agency produced 1,450 pages of records, but withheld the NIST Study under Exemption 7(E) as well as Exemption 5 (privileges). Siding with the agency, Mehta noted the NIST Study had a rational nexus to the agency's law enforcement function. He pointed out that "a federal agency, like the Commission, cannot effectively carry out its law enforcement function unless it has a secure and reliable IT system. The Commission is responsible for investigating violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act. Its IT system contains sensitive information related to investigations. . .[T]he Commission's IT system is central to its law enforcement function." He noted that "the NIST Study in turn was designed to promote the integrity of that system and thus itself serves a law enforcement function. . .A study designed to evaluate and improve a critical law enforcement tool, such as an IT system, easily meets the rational nexus requirement." Mehta observed that the study was compiled for law enforcement purposes because it assessed the risk of a cybersecurity attack on the FEC's IT system. Levinthal argued the study had to pertain to an actual investigation to qualify for Exemption 7(E), but Mehta indicated that "the fact that the NIST Study does not pertain to a particular investigation does not place it outside Exemption 7(E)." Levinthal contended that disclosure of the NIST Study would not be harmful because the vulnerabilities it addressed had since been fixed. Mehta rejected the claim, noting that the agency's declaration "credibly demonstrates that disclosure of any portion of the NIST Study would pose a present and genuine security threat to the Commission's law enforcement function." While he acknowledged that much of the NIST Study was probably deliberative, Levinthal argued the agency had failed to show why it could not release non-exempt information from the study. Mehta pointed out that the agency's declaration "clearly establishes that the factual portions of the NIST Stud are 'inextricably intertwined' with its deliberative elements. It also sets forth with 'reasonable specificity' why those factual portions cannot be segregated."
Issues: Exemption 7(E) - Investigative methods or techniques, Exemption 5 - Privileges - Deliberative process privilege - Deliberative | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant Federal Election Commission's Answer FEC's Motion for Summary Judgment [13] FEC's Reply and Opposition [16] Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition[14 Plaintiffs' Reply [18] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
