Cause of Action Institute v. United States Department of Justice
Civil Action No. 2016-2226
D.D.C.Oct 10, 2017Background
- Cause of Action Institute (COA) filed a FOIA request seeking two records: a May 2014 Bringer–Wolfinger email chain and a November 2011 report about attorney details to the White House. The report was later produced in full and is not at issue.
- DOJ Tax Division initially segmented the email chain into nine records, withholding eight as “non-responsive” and redacting portions of one record under FOIA exemptions. COA sued alleging improper segmentation and use of “non-responsive” redactions.
- After litigation began, DOJ issued guidance defining what constitutes a “record” and reprocessed the email chain, producing it as a single record and withdrawing the “non-responsive” designations but applying redactions pursuant to exemptions 3, 5, 6, 7(A), and 7(C).
- COA did not challenge the substance of DOJ’s redactions in the reprocessed production and conceded it received the email chain in the form it requested; COA sought to amend to add an explicit policy-or-practice claim challenging DOJ’s guidance.
- DOJ moved for summary judgment arguing the case was moot because COA obtained the requested materials; COA cross-moved but conceded the exemptions and production were acceptable and separately moved for leave to supplement the complaint.
- The Court denied COA’s motion to supplement (Rule 15(d)), held COA would unduly prejudice DOJ and improperly expand the case at the late stage, and granted DOJ’s summary judgment motion because COA obtained the relief sought, rendering the dispute moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether COA may supplement the complaint to add a policy-or-practice claim based on DOJ guidance | COA: leave to supplement is appropriate to challenge DOJ’s post-filing guidance and to address mootness arguments; DOJ’s awareness negates surprise | DOJ: supplement would radically change scope at late stage, causing undue prejudice and delay; Rule 15(d) should be denied | Denied — supplement would unduly prejudice DOJ and transform the case on the eve of final resolution |
| Whether the case is moot after DOJ reprocessed and produced the email chain as a single record | COA: voluntary cessation and other exceptions save the claim from mootness; DOJ guidance suggests misconduct could recur | DOJ: COA received all requested records in requested form and does not contest redactions; therefore no live controversy remains | Moot — COA obtained the requested relief and does not oppose exemptions; no case or controversy remains |
| Applicability of voluntary cessation or capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exceptions | COA: DOJ’s Guidance could allow recurrence; COA is a frequent requester so likely to face the conduct again | DOJ: COA did not plead a policy-or-practice claim originally; cases invoking the exceptions involved explicit policy challenges | Exceptions do not apply — COA did not plead a policy/practice claim and production eradicated the asserted injury |
| Entitlement to summary judgment or further relief after production | COA: requests declaratory relief that DOJ violated FOIA by segmentation and non-responsive redactions | DOJ: production moots those claims; court may not issue advisory rulings | Summary judgment for DOJ; COA’s cross-motion denied as moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Perry v. Block, 684 F.2d 121 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (once all requested FOIA records are produced, courts have no further statutory function and case becomes moot)
- Bayala v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., Office of Gen. Counsel, 827 F.3d 31 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (Article III requires a live controversy at all stages; mootness when intervening circumstances remove the plaintiff’s stake)
- W.T. Grant Co. v. United States, 345 U.S. 629 (1953) (voluntary cessation doctrine: a defendant’s cessation does not moot a case if there is reasonable expectation the violation will recur)
- Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85 (2013) (an actual controversy must exist throughout litigation; courts may not issue advisory opinions)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standard when nonmoving party fails to show an essential element)
- Hall v. Central Intelligence Agency, 437 F.3d 94 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (standard for allowing supplemental pleadings under Rule 15(d) and assessing prejudice and judicial economy)