Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. US Department of Education
905 F. Supp. 2d 161
D.D.C.2012Background
- CREW filed a FOIA request to the DoEd on July 23, 2010 seeking internal communications with listed for-profit education actors from April 20, 2009 to present.
- DoEd produced documents in multiple segments and identified various offices as likely custodians; later expanded searches to additional offices.
- Initial searches covered only certain DoEd email accounts; later, select employees with Folder Admin access conducted agency-wide email searches dating to April 2009.
- Two DoEd searches (March 28, 2011 and March 31, 2011) yielded hundreds of thousands and then thousands of results, with nonresponsive items removed before production.
- DoEd conducted paper-file searches for responsive records in addition to email/electronic searches; most responsive material was produced except for some redactions under Exemption 5.
- CREW challenged the search scope and argued Exemption 5 protected documents; DoEd moved for summary judgment on search adequacy and Exemption 5, CREW cross-moved on Exemption 5, and the court granted DoEd summary judgment on the search but denied CREW’s cross-motion on Exemption 5.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of the DoEd search | CREW contends the search was inadequate and incomplete. | DoEd conducted a reasonable search across multiple offices and systems with detailed affidavits. | DoEd's search was adequate. |
| Applicability of Exemption 5 to withheld documents | Exemption 5 no longer protects predecisional records post-regulation; documents should be released. | Documents were predecisional and deliberative, properly withheld under Exemption 5. | DoEd properly withheld documents under Exemption 5. |
| Format and metadata requirements for production | DoEd should provide electronic copies with metadata and complete email addresses. | FOIA does not obligate electronic format or metadata where not readily reproducible; paper formats were acceptable. | DoEd was not required to provide metadata or electronic copies with metadata. |
Key Cases Cited
- NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132 (1975) (standard for FOIA disclosure and exemptions)
- Oglesby v. Dep’t of Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (reasonableness of search; four-corners limitation)
- Steinberg v. Dep’t of Justice, 23 F.3d 548 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (burden on plaintiff after adequate affidavits; reasonableness in searches)
- Military Audit Project v. Casey, 656 F.2d 724 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (agency affidavits; good faith presumption; no bad faith needed)
- Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (deliberative process privilege framework for Exemption 5)
- Coastal States Gas Corp. v. Dep’t of Energy, 617 F.2d 854 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (deliberative process; predecisional/deliberative distinction)
- Tax Analysts v. IRS, 117 F.3d 607 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (deliberative process; post-adoption status)
- Mead Data Cent., Inc. v. Dep’t of Air Force, 566 F.2d 242 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (predecisional vs adopted positions)
- SafeCard Servs. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (rebuttal limits for agency affidavits; cannot rely on speculation)