453 F.Supp.3d 368
D.D.C.2020Background
- Cause of Action Institute (COA) submitted a FOIA request to DOJ OIP in Dec. 2013 seeking records about Executive Order 13457, requests to commit/obligate funds, and agency decisions to expend funds at the behest of Congress or the White House.
- OIP located 1,021 pages, produced some material, withheld pages under FOIA Exemptions 5 and 6, and redacted portions it labeled as “Non-Responsive Record” based on OIP guidance defining what constitutes a FOIA “record.”
- COA sued on Oct. 15, 2018, challenging (Claim 1) specific redactions in three letters with attached Questions for the Record (QFRs) and (Claim 2) the lawfulness of OIP’s Guidance that instructs agencies how to segment documents into discrete records.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The court reviewed whether DOJ lawfully divided QFR documents into discrete records and whether it could adjudicate COA’s broader challenge to OIP Guidance.
- Court found DOJ’s practice of treating an individual QFR (a question and its answer) as a discrete record generally lawful, but holding that treating a sub-question and its answer as a separate, redactable unit was impermissibly narrow; it ordered production of withheld subparts. The court dismissed Claim 2 for lack of standing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DOJ lawfully divided QFR documents into discrete records and redacted non‑responsive portions | DOJ improperly withheld non-exempt information within responsive documents in violation of AILA; COA seeks entire unredacted QFR documents | OIP Guidance reasonably allows agencies to identify discrete records (e.g., individual QFRs or sub-questions plus answers) and to withhold non-responsive records within a compiled document | Court: Agencies may divide QFRs into discrete records, but a record must include a question (with all subparts) together with its answer; treating a sub-question separately from its parent question/answer was too narrow — DOJ must produce withheld subparts |
| Whether COA has standing to obtain declaratory/injunctive relief invalidating OIP Guidance (Claim 2) | OIP Guidance is a policy/practice likely to impair COA’s lawful access to information in the future; seeks injunction and declaration | No concrete, imminent injury shown; any future harm from Guidance is speculative; Payne distinguished | Court: COA lacks standing to challenge OIP Guidance generally; Claim 2 dismissed for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- American Immigration Lawyers Ass'n v. Exec. Office for Immigration Review, 830 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (FOIA requires disclosure of responsive records as units; agencies may define records but should not parse documents unduly narrowly)
- Payne Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 837 F.2d 486 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (agency policy/practice causing continuing injury can support equitable relief; factual showing of ongoing harm required)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (standing requires a concrete and particularized injury-in-fact)
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013) (threatened injury must be certainly impending to confer standing)
- American Oversight v. HHS, 380 F. Supp. 3d 45 (D.D.C. 2019) (cautioning against overly literal segmentation of email chains; reply exchanges often form a unified record)