American Center for Equitable Treatment, Inc. v. Office of Management and Budget
Civil Action No. 2016-1820
| D.D.C. | Dec 19, 2017Background
- Plaintiff American Center for Equitable Treatment submitted three FOIA requests in 2016 to OMB seeking records about the Paperwork Reduction Act, OMB guidance, OMB review of specific ICRs, OMB application of certain PTO regulations, petitions under 44 U.S.C. § 3517(b), and related materials.
- OMB (via OIRA/OGC) performed centralized e‑mail searches of identified custodians using Boolean searches, produced responsive pages (some redacted under Exemptions 5 and 6), and withheld some documents in full.
- Plaintiff appealed, arguing OMB’s search was inadequate because it limited time ranges, used overly specific search terms (omitting common abbreviations/vernacular), and restricted searches to certain custodians and email systems.
- OMB supplemented its searches and declarations, represented that no other locations likely contained responsive records, and produced additional material; Plaintiff narrowed its challenges, abandoning location claims.
- The district court evaluated only two remaining adequacy issues: (1) OMB’s temporal limits (e.g., starting searches at Jan. 20, 2009 rather than plaintiff’s earlier dates) and (2) OMB’s choice to use formal citations and phrases instead of commonly used abbreviations/terms (e.g., not searching for “ICR” or “Rule 111”).
- The court granted summary judgment to OMB in part but denied it in part, holding OMB failed to justify its temporal limits and did not adequately explain rejection of plaintiff’s suggested search terms; remand for narrower relief (supplemental searches or more detailed explanation) was ordered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Temporal scope of searches | OMB improperly limited searches (e.g., to post‑2009) though Plaintiff requested earlier records back to 1995 or no limit | OMB asserted records pre‑2009 were destroyed or transferred and searched likely electronic locations starting 2009 | Denied for OMB: declarations fail to explain why plaintiff’s date ranges were not used; OMB must expand searches or justify limits |
| Choice of search terms | OMB used hyper‑specific legal citations but omitted common abbreviations/vernacular (e.g., "ICR", "Rule 111", "MPEP") that likely appear in emails | OMB contends its selected Boolean terms were reasonably tailored based on consultations with subject experts | Denied for OMB: agency’s conclusory declaration insufficient; must run plaintiff’s suggested terms or explain why those terms were unnecessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Brayton v. Off. of U.S. Trade Representative, 641 F.3d 521 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (summary judgment is appropriate in FOIA cases)
- Reporters Comm. for Freedom of Press v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 489 U.S. 749 (U.S. 1989) (agency bears burden to sustain its FOIA withholding and courts review de novo)
- SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (agency affidavits may support summary judgment if relatively detailed and non‑conclusory)
- McGehee v. CIA, 697 F.2d 1095 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (temporal limits on FOIA searches must be reasonable; agency must take steps to ferret out requested documents)
- Oglesby v. U.S. Dep’t of Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (agency must describe search terms, methods, and aver that files likely to contain responsive materials were searched)
- Coffey v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 249 F. Supp. 3d 488 (D.D.C. 2017) (search terms must be reasonably calculated to locate responsive documents)