916 F. Supp. 2d 141
D.D.C.2013Background
- CREW filed FOIA requests with the SEC seeking reasons for not pursuing closed preliminary investigations, including Madoff, AIG CDS, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, and Deutsche Bank/Lehman/SAC matters.
- CREW alleges FRA/FOIA-related duties were violated by destruction of preliminary investigative records and failure to recover destroyed records.
- SEC reversed its destruction policy; in prior ruling, counts based on destruction policy were moot; counts on restoration duties remain.
- Court previously found APA and mandamus claims hinge on whether the FRA imposes a restoration duty and whether the SEC’s internal remedial steps suffice.
- This ruling analyzes whether the FRA §3106 imposes a restoration duty and whether SEC’s internal actions satisfied any such duty, under APA review and mandamus standards.
- Court grants summary judgment for SEC on CREW’s remaining two counts and denies CREW relief, concluding SEC did not abuse discretion and that APA provides adequate relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §3106 impose a restoration duty for destroyed records? | CREW argues the duty extends to recovering destroyed records. | SEC contends the duty applies only to removed records, not destroyed ones. | Yes, §3106 applies only to removed records; destruction not within mandatory duty. |
| If a restoration duty exists, has SEC fulfilled it via internal steps? | CREW contends SEC failed to undertake adequate restoration actions. | SEC argues its internal remedial actions were within discretion and adequate. | SEC’s internal actions were not arbitrary or capricious; summary judgment for SEC on APA claim. |
| Is CREW entitled to mandamus given an adequate APA remedy? | CREW seeks mandamus to compel restoration actions. | Mandamus is improper where APA provides adequate relief and duty is discretionary. | Mandamus denied; APA provides adequate remedy and duty is discretionary. |
Key Cases Cited
- Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55 (2004) (limits on reviewing agency inaction; compels action only for discrete duty)
- Armstrong v. Bush, 924 F.2d 282 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (discretion to pursue intra-agency remedial steps under FRA)
- Armstrong v. Executive Office of the President, 1 F.3d 1274 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (explains FRA enforcement opportunities and future actions)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (summary review deferential to agency choices with rational basis)
- Enterprise Nat. Bank v. Vilsack, 568 F.3d 229 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (framework for reviewing agency actions when duties are discretionary)
- Cobell v. Norton, 392 F.3d 461 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (limits on court substitution of agency with its preferred method)
- American Association of Retired Persons v. EEOC, 823 F.2d 600 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (limits on supervisory action under FRA when agency discretion applies)
- Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Union Planters Bank, 530 U.S. 1 (2000) (statutory interpretation and plain meaning governs)
- Virginia Department of Medical Assistance Services v. Department of Health & Human Services, 678 F.3d 918 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (plain-meaning approach to statutory interpretation)