Campaign for Accountability v. U.S. Department of Justice
280 F. Supp. 3d 112
D.D.C.2017Background
- Plaintiff Campaign for Accountability (CfA) sued DOJ/Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) under FOIA §552 alleging OLC failed to affirmatively publish certain OLC opinions as required by §552(a)(2).
- CfA initially sent a March 22, 2016 demand for publication of "all unpublished OLC opinions that provide controlling legal advice" and a general index; the initial complaint was dismissed for failing to identify an ascertainable set of records but CfA was allowed to amend.
- In its October 2017 amended complaint CfA narrowed its claim to five specific categories of OLC opinions it says must be published: (1) interagency-dispute opinions; (2) opinions to independent agencies; (3) interpretations of non‑discretionary obligations; (4) opinions declaring statutes unconstitutional relieving agencies of compliance; and (5) opinions adjudicating private rights.
- Instead of answering, OLC moved to stay proceedings so CfA would submit (and exhaust) a new FOIA request covering the narrowed categories; CfA opposed, arguing the amended complaint merely narrowed the original demand.
- The Court balanced judicial economy against exhaustion principles, concluded CfA need not submit a new FOIA request, but granted a limited stay so OLC can treat the amended complaint as a clarification of CfA’s March 22, 2016 request and respond within the FOIA 20-business-day window.
- The Court ordered OLC’s response due by January 2, 2018 and required the parties to file a joint status report (including OLC’s response) with a proposed further schedule by January 23, 2018.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CfA must submit and exhaust a new FOIA request for the narrowed categories before litigation proceeds | CfA: Amended complaint is a narrowing/clarification of the original March 22, 2016 demand; no new request required | OLC: CfA must submit (and exhaust) a new request for the discrete categories before litigation | Court: Denied requirement to submit a new request; treated amended complaint as a clarification and ordered OLC to respond within 20 business days under a limited stay |
| Whether the court should stay proceedings to allow the agency to reconsider and potentially resolve issues administratively | CfA: Opposed a stay only if it functions as a forced exhaustion requirement or causes delay | OLC: A short stay will conserve resources, avoid unnecessary motions, and allow agency expertise to inform issues | Court: Granted a limited prudential stay to allow OLC to evaluate and respond, emphasizing judicial economy and agency expertise |
| Whether §552(a)(2) claims require the same specificity/exhaustion rules as §552(a)(3) requests | CfA: (a)(2) claims need not meet the (a)(3) specificity/exhaustion requirements; initial demand can suffice | OLC: Relied on (a)(3) principles to argue exhaustion/specification should apply | Court: Agreed (a)(2) differs from (a)(3); OLC did not show (a)(3)-level exhaustion was required for (a)(2) claim |
| Whether forcing a new request would be an improper dismissal in guise of a stay | CfA: Requiring a new request would be unnecessary delay and could improperly dismiss amended claims | OLC: Argued new request/exhaustion would properly present discrete claims to agency first | Court: Found requiring full administrative restart unnecessary and potentially improper; refused to impose exhaustion here |
Key Cases Cited
- Air Line Pilots Ass’n v. Miller, 523 U.S. 866 (1998) (courts have inherent power to manage their dockets and stay proceedings)
- Belize Soc. Dev. Ltd. v. Gov’t of Belize, 668 F.3d 724 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (stay analysis balances judicial economy and hardship to parties)
- Payne Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 837 F.2d 486 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (FOIA does not limit courts’ equitable powers)
- Renegotiation Bd. v. Bannercraft Clothing Co., 415 U.S. 1 (1974) (equitable powers to enforce statutory terms)
- Hidalgo v. FBI, 344 F.3d 1256 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (agency expertise benefits courts in FOIA litigation)
- Prisology, Inc. v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 852 F.3d 1114 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (FOIA plaintiff must make an initial demand before suit)
- Nat’l Sec. Counselors v. CIA, 898 F. Supp. 2d 233 (D.D.C. 2012) (discussing specificity required for (a)(3) requests versus (a)(2) claims)
- Davis v. FBI, 767 F. Supp. 2d 201 (D.D.C. 2011) (same distinction between (a)(3) and (a)(2) specificity)
- Limnia, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, 857 F.3d 379 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (voluntary remand/agency reconsideration post-remand does not require new plaintiff action)
- Oglesby v. U.S. Dep’t of Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (agency must provide appeal rights in administrative response to trigger exhaustion)