Cable News Network, Inc. v. Federal Bureau of Investigation
271 F. Supp. 3d 108
D.D.C.2017Background
- Freedom Watch submitted a FOIA request (May 18, 2017) to DOJ Criminal Division seeking “any and all” documents that “constitute, refer, or relate in any way to” memoranda by former FBI Director James Comey concerning several named officials.
- DOJ responded that the request was overbroad and failed to reasonably describe the records as required by agency FOIA regulations, and asked Freedom Watch to clarify or narrow the request within 30 days; DOJ warned it would administratively close the request if not narrowed.
- Freedom Watch did not respond to DOJ’s request for clarification and nonetheless filed suit in federal court against DOJ and the FBI.
- DOJ moved for judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment; Freedom Watch did not oppose the motion.
- The Court accepted DOJ’s uncontested factual assertions and evaluated whether Freedom Watch had exhausted administrative remedies by making a valid FOIA request under 28 C.F.R. § 16.3(b).
- The Court held that the phrase “relate in any way to” rendered the request overbroad and that Freedom Watch’s failure to narrow or clarify meant it did not properly exhaust administrative remedies; judgment granted for DOJ.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Freedom Watch’s FOIA request reasonably described records under DOJ regulations | The original request was sufficient to require processing (seeking all Comey memoranda related to listed officials) | The request was overbroad/vague ("relate in any way to" is not a reasonable description); DOJ asked for clarification which was not provided | Court held request was overbroad and insufficiently described records; not a valid FOIA request |
| Whether plaintiff exhausted administrative remedies before suing | Impliedly that filing suit was proper despite lack of narrowed request (no opposition filed) | Failure to comply with DOJ’s request-procedure meant failure to exhaust; administrative exhaustion required | Court held Freedom Watch failed to exhaust administrative remedies; suit dismissed as to this claim |
| Whether the court may grant summary judgment based on uncontested agency declarations in FOIA context | (No opposition filed; plaintiff offered no competing evidence) | Agency may obtain summary judgment when declarations show nondisclosure justification and are uncontroverted | Court granted judgment for DOJ under summary-judgment standard accepting uncontested facts |
| Whether agency’s request-for-clarification procedures are permissible restraints on FOIA requests | (Not argued due to no opposition) | Such procedures are reasonable and required to initiate FOIA processing | Court held DOJ’s procedures reasonable and exhaustion requirement applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Winston & Strawn, LLP v. McLean, 843 F.3d 503 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (court may accept uncontested factual assertions when nonmovant fails to oppose summary judgment)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (definition of genuine dispute for summary-judgment standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (materiality and genuine dispute standards for summary judgment)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (movant’s burden in showing absence of genuine issue of material fact)
- Brayton v. Office of U.S. Trade Rep., 641 F.3d 521 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (FOIA cases appropriately decided on summary judgment)
- Larson v. Department of State, 565 F.3d 857 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (agency affidavits can support summary judgment in FOIA when sufficiently detailed and uncontroverted)
- Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (1989) (FOIA places burden on agency to sustain nondisclosure and requires de novo court review)
- Oglesby v. Department of the Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (exhaustion of administrative remedies required in FOIA cases)
- Dettmann v. Department of Justice, 802 F.2d 1472 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (exhaustion is longstanding FOIA requirement supporting orderly administration)
- Freedom Watch v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 925 F. Supp. 2d 55 (D.D.C. 2013) (similar ruling that overbroad "relate to" requests do not reasonably describe records)