289 F. Supp. 3d 81
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- ACLJ submitted a FOIA request to the State Department on July 25, 2016 seeking documents about State’s funding of an organization opposing Netanyahu; State acknowledged receipt, denied expedited processing, and granted a fee waiver.
- ACLJ sued after waiting five months, alleging (Count I) statutory FOIA violation for failing to issue a determination within 20 working days and (Count II) that State maintained a policy or practice of refusing to respond until requesters sue.
- The court previously dismissed Count II without prejudice, allowed ACLJ to amend, and permitted the amended policy-or-practice claim to proceed.
- State moved for partial summary judgment on Count II, producing the declaration of Eric Stein and agency FOIA reports showing massive caseloads, large backlogs, staffing shortfalls, and substantial resources diverted to court-ordered productions.
- ACLJ sought discovery under Rule 56(d) to probe State’s FOIA practices; State opposed, arguing affidavit and reports suffice and delays stem from resource constraints rather than a deliberate policy to force litigation.
- The court granted State’s partial summary judgment on Count II and denied ACLJ’s Rule 56(d) discovery motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether State has a policy or practice of refusing to issue FOIA determinations until requesters sue | ACLJ: State maintains an intentional policy/practice of delaying responses until litigation, shown by repeated delays and selective prioritization | State: No such policy; delays are due to massive caseload, backlog, limited resources, and necessary prioritization of litigation and expedited matters | No actionable policy or practice; delays, even repeated, are not enough absent evidence of intentional, litigation-forcing conduct |
| Whether alleged practice is "sufficiently outrageous" to warrant equitable relief (injunction) | ACLJ: Pattern of delay and OIG findings show systemic misconduct warranting injunction | State: Its delays are explained, efforts underway to improve compliance, and conduct lacks the malice/intent found in precedents that warranted injunctions | Not sufficiently outrageous; State provided legitimate explanations and remedial steps, so injunctive relief is unwarranted |
| Whether ACLJ is entitled to discovery under Rule 56(d) to prove bad faith or a hidden policy | ACLJ: Needs targeted discovery on policies, prioritization, staffing, and treatment of ACLJ requests to rebut State’s conclusory assertions | State: FOIA cases are typically resolved on agency affidavits; Stein’s declaration and FOIA reports are detailed and in good faith, and ACLJ’s request is a fishing expedition | Denied: Plaintiff failed to show discovery would produce specific facts creating a triable issue; record and agency reports refute need for discovery |
| Whether agency affidavits and reports suffice to rebut a policy-or-practice claim | ACLJ: Affidavits are conclusory and require testing by discovery | State: Affidavits and public FOIA reports are detailed and credible; courts may rely on them absent particularized evidence of bad faith | Held that Stein’s declaration and agency reports were sufficiently detailed and made in good faith; ACLJ offered no non-speculative evidence of bad faith |
Key Cases Cited
- Payne Enterp., Inc. v. United States, 837 F.2d 486 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (equitable relief appropriate where agency persisted in unjustified, intentional practice of withholding records)
- Long v. Internal Revenue Service, 693 F.2d 907 (9th Cir. 1982) (injunction warranted where agency conceded records should be released but intentionally delayed disclosure to force litigation)
- Cause of Action Inst. v. Eggleston, 224 F. Supp. 3d 63 (D.D.C. 2016) (delay alone insufficient; plaintiff must show agency acts to delay requests)
- Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. DOJ, 846 F.3d 1235 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (courts have broad equitable authority to enforce FOIA; injunctions reserved for extraordinary agency misconduct)
- Muttitt v. Dep’t of State, 926 F. Supp. 2d 284 (D.D.C. 2013) (repeated delay not actionable absent policy showing)