Coffey v. Bureau of Land Management
249 F. Supp. 3d 488
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Debbie Coffey, an advocate concerned with BLM’s Wild Horse and Burro Program, submitted a FOIA request (Apr 29, 2015) seeking communications between two BLM employees (Lili Thomas and Beatrice Wade) and long-term holding contractors/managers (2007–2015 range), excluding invoices and inter/intra-agency communications.
- BLM denied a fee waiver, estimated processing fees at $1,680, received Coffey’s payment, but delayed production and eventually deposited the check; Coffey requested a refund after the agency missed the FOIA deadline and then filed suit (Mar 17, 2016).
- After suit, BLM produced 514 pages (Apr 2016) but only three pages were actually responsive; many pages were non-responsive due to a FOIA Office processing error and some were redacted under FOIA exemptions.
- BLM later refunded Coffey the $1,680 (Jan 13, 2017) but did not pay interest; Coffey sought interest ($6.81) for the period the Bureau held her funds.
- Coffey challenged (1) entitlement to interest on refunded fees and (2) adequacy of BLM’s search, arguing BLM failed to search by contractor/facility names and email addresses and used overly contract-focused keywords.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to interest on refunded processing fees | Coffey: BLM should return fees with statutory interest for delay | BLM: FOIA does not waive sovereign immunity for interest; no statutory basis for interest | Denied. Court applied the no-interest rule; refunded fees without interest are adequate |
| Adequacy of BLM’s search (choice of keywords) | Coffey: BLM’s search terms (contract-related and city-state formats) were too narrow; agency should have searched contractor/facility names and email addresses | BLM: Used broad contracting terms and facility locations; searched paper and electronic files for Thomas and Wade; claimed searches were reasonable | Denied summary judgment for BLM on adequacy. Court found search terms unreasonable and ordered a new search using different keywords (e.g., names/email addresses) |
| Adequacy of search description/detail in declarations | Coffey: Witt’s declarations were vague about methodology and databases searched | BLM: Declarations identified who searched, which files (paper and email), terms used, and timeframes | Rejected. Court held declarations gave sufficient detail had the search terms been adequate; no further detail required now |
| Scope re: phone records | Coffey: FOIA request included phone records; BLM failed to search phone records | BLM: Request sought notes from phone calls, not phone-company billing/metadata; search scope accordingly limited | Rejected. Court held Coffey did not request phone-company records and may seek them in a separate FOIA request |
Key Cases Cited
- Stein v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 197 F. Supp. 3d 115 (D.D.C. 2016) (court refunded FOIA fees and ordered interest in that case; relied on by plaintiff)
- Trout v. Sec’y of the Navy, 317 F.3d 286 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (articulates the no-interest rule barring interest against the government absent congressional authorization)
- Dep’t of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (1989) (FOIA places burden on agency and calls for de novo review)
- Valencia-Lucena v. Coast Guard, 180 F.3d 321 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (agency must show its search was reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents)
- Weisberg v. Dep’t of Justice, 745 F.2d 1476 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (adequacy of search judged by reasonableness of methods, not by whether other documents may exist)
- Oglesby v. Dep’t of Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (affidavits should set forth search terms, types of searches, and aver that all likely locations were searched)
- Bigwood v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., 132 F. Supp. 3d 124 (D.D.C. 2015) (agency has discretion to choose search terms but they must be reasonably calculated to find responsive records)