Energy Future Coalition v. Office of Management and Budget
201 F. Supp. 3d 55
| D.D.C. | 2016Background
- Plaintiffs (Energy Future Coalition et al.) moved for reconsideration of the court’s July 25, 2016 order that granted the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) an Open America stay delaying FOIA processing.
- Plaintiffs argued OMB failed to show due diligence before the complaint was filed and that OMB’s FOIA workforce had doubled, undermining the claimed personnel shortage.
- The court previously found that OMB made repeated attempts to narrow the request (August and September 2015), and that any post-September 30, 2015 communication lapse was a good-faith mistake cured after the complaint was filed.
- OMB submitted supplemental declarations clarifying its FOIA staffing: two full-time employees (FOIA Officer and paralegal specialist), slight increase in paralegal time, and the later hiring of a temporary contractor to address backlog.
- OMB committed to processing 500 documents per month for Plaintiffs’ request; with the contractor OMB can review more documents overall but the contractor’s work focuses on older backlog requests.
- Court required OMB to report on backlog reduction and its impact on resources (status report due Sept. 23, 2016). The court denied reconsideration of the stay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether OMB exercised due diligence in processing the FOIA request | OMB failed to show due diligence before the complaint, pointing to a communication lapse after Sept. 30, 2015 | OMB showed multiple outreach efforts and internal steps to narrow the request; lapse was an isolated communication mistake cured after filing | Court held OMB met its burden of due diligence and affirmed the stay |
| Whether OMB’s FOIA workforce increased (negating the basis for the stay) | OMB admitted its full-time FOIA workforce doubled since April, undermining claimed staffing shortage | OMB clarified it still had two full-time FOIA employees; a temporary contractor was later hired to reduce backlog but does not change core staffing | Court credited OMB’s declarations, found no doubling of full-time staff, and affirmed stay and processing rate (500 docs/month) |
| Whether an Open America stay is warranted | Plaintiffs contended exceptional-circumstances showing and due diligence were lacking | OMB argued exceptional circumstances (backlog) plus demonstrated due diligence and allocation of personnel | Court affirmed that exceptional circumstances and due diligence support an Open America stay |
| Relief and monitoring | Plaintiffs sought vacatur or modification of stay | OMB requested continuation of stay and time to process requests | Court denied reconsideration, maintained stay, ordered status update on backlog impact |
Key Cases Cited
- Open America v. Watergate Special Prosecution Force, 547 F.2d 605 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (establishes that courts may grant stays where exceptional circumstances exist and the agency shows due diligence)
- Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (grounds for reconsideration: intervening change in law, new evidence, or correction of clear error/manifest injustice)
- SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. Securities & Exchange Comm’n, 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (agency affidavits receive a presumption of good faith that cannot be rebutted by speculation)
- Jung v. Assoc. of Am. Med. Colls., 226 F.R.D. 7 (D.D.C. 2005) (motions for reconsideration should not relitigate matters or raise arguments that could have been raised earlier)