Case Detail
| Case Title | BUZZFEED, INC. v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | District of Columbia | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Washington, DC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 1:2019cv00070 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2019-01-11 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2019-12-04 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Judge Trevor N. McFadden | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | BUZZFEED, INC. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Description | Buzzfeed reporter Chris Geidner submitted a FOIA request to the Department of Justice for records of the formal documentation of Matthew Whitaker as Acting Attorney General. DOJ referred Geidner to the White House, which told him that there was formal documentation of Whitaker's appointment but that it would not provide it to Geidner. Buzzfeed also requested disclosure forms Whitaker was required to fill out under the Ethics in Government Act, but after hearing nothing further from the agency, Buzzfeed filed suit. Complaint issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation - Attorney's fees | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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 Complaint attachment 9 Opinion/Order [24] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Trevor McFadden has ruled that the Department of Justice has not shown that draft financial disclosure forms prepared for Matthew Whitaker when he was appointed acting Attorney General are protected by Exemption 5 (privileges). BuzzFeed News requested Whitaker's draft financial disclosure forms the day after the final version was publicly disclosed. After the agency failed to provide the drafts, BuzzFeed filed suit. DOJ declined to disclose 14 earlier versions, withholding them under Exemption 5 and Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy). McFadden explained that "to qualify for the deliberative process privilege, the draft versions of Whitaker's [Office of Government Ethics] forms must have been both 'pre-decisional' and 'deliberative.' BuzzFeed argues that because the forms themselves 'could not possibly have made any recommendations or expressed any opinions, they are not deliberative.' The Court agrees. Whitaker submitted his OGE forms to DOJ's ethics officials, they share the forms among themselves and with Whitaker several times before final approval. The ethics officials followed this process to 'accurately complete the forms under the applicable statute, regulations, and guidance.' But DOJ has not carried its burden of establishing that the draft forms themselves reflect the deliberative process, so the exemption does not apply." BuzzFeed acknowledged that the draft forms were pre-decisional, but McFadden indicated that was irrelevant under the circumstances. He observed that "communications or documents that simply 'promulgate or implement an established policy of an agency' are not pre-decisional. So we turn to that question: whether the draft forms express DOJ's policy opinions. As it turns out, they do not." He pointed out that "it is unclear that the ethics officials' revisions had anything to do with the 'give-and-take of the consultative process' that leads to policy. DOJ was not formulating policy at all. Its ethics officials were merely trying to assist in the accurate completion of Whitaker's financial disclosure forms in compliance with the Ethics in Government Act and OGE policy." McFadden indicated that "BuzzFeed has not asked for deliberative records. BuzzFeed disclaims any interest in the internal emails in which the forms were attached or other documented communications, asking only for Whitaker's draft forms themselves. To be clear, the draft forms at issue here are fill-in-the-blank standardized forms that seek purely factual information about the filer's financial situation. It is the emails that presumably contain the back-and-forth of questions and advice within the ethics office and between the ethics office and Whitaker that the deliberative process privilege arguably protects." McFadden then observed that "by its own admission, DOJ had no discretion at all. It could only certify Whitaker's forms when they 'correctly and completely' represented his financial information as required by law. And the mere collection of facts does not constitute a privileged decision." McFadden rejected the agency's broad claims that disclosure would have a chilling effect of future deliberations. Instead, he noted that "indeed, the forms at issue contain no discussions at all, candid or otherwise." McFadden agreed with the agency that Whitaker's forms contained personal information. He observed that "here, the categories of information in Whitaker's draft forms convey intimate information about his financial affairs. . .The financial information listed in the forms is intensely personal and meets the threshold privacy requirement." By contrast, McFadden explained that "in any event, Congress provided much of this balancing when it enacted the Ethics in Government Act. . .Congress's determination that other financial data need not be self-disclosed speaks just as clearly about financial details that should remain private. And BuzzFeed should not be able to use FOIA to do an end-run around the disclosure lines Congress established in the Ethics in Government Act." Turning to the issue of segregability, McFadden pointed out that "there are [several] ways the drafts and the final versions may differ. He observed that "where Whitaker under-reported on a draft submission there is no justification for withholding the draft, because it is simply missing an entry available in the final version. He has no privacy interest in missing information." He added that "Whitaker may have reported an asset, position, liability, transaction, or other entry that was modified in some way before the final version. . . Here again, there is not justification for withholding the drafts, because they report the same underlying information in the final form but use different language or monetary values."
Issues: Exemption 5 - Privileges - Deliberative process privilege - Deliberative, Exemption 6 - Invasion of privacy | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
