828 F. Supp. 2d 97
D.D.C.2011Background
- ExxonMobil challenged NOAA/DOI and EPA FOIA responses regarding the Michel and Boufadel studies funded by Exxon settlement proceeds.
- The Exxon Valdez Trustee Council funds and oversees restoration projects, with NOAA as a trustee but not a direct fiscal or managerial controller of funded research.
- Michel (Research Planning, Inc.) and Boufadel (Temple University) conducted studies; NOAA’s COTR monitored progress but did not supervise substantive research.
- Trustee Council policies require final reports to be public; preliminary data may remain with investigators until final reports are submitted.
- Exxon filed multiple FOIA requests (2007–2010) seeking data, models, and field work related to the two studies; some responses were appealed.
- The court granted summary judgment for defendants on the FOIA claims, finding certain requests not subject to FOIA as not agency records and that Exxon did not exhaust administrative remedies for others.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies under FOIA | Exxon argues remedies were exhausted by subsequent requests/appeals. | Exxon failed to appeal within 30 days for certain denials; exhaustion not satisfied. | Exxon failed to exhaust for specific requests; claims barred. |
| Whether Michel and Boufadel records are NOAA agency records | Records were created/obtained by private researchers funded by NOAA and should be agency records. | Records were created by private researchers and funded by Trustee Council funds, not NOAA; not agency records. | Not agency records; NOAA not in control/ownership for FOIA purposes. |
| Whether EPA records related to Boufadel project are agency records | EPA should possess records as part of an EPA-funded/overseen project. | Project involved private researchers funded by Trustee Council; EPA had no involvement after proposal stage. | Not agency records; EPA not in control or creator of the records. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tax Analysts, Inc. v. Dept. of Justice, 492 U.S. 136 (1989) (agency records creation/retention standard under FOIA)
- Burka v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 87 F.3d 508 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (control over records factors for agency records test)
- Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Fed. Hous. Fin. Agency, 646 F.3d 924 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (agency records control where agency has minimal involvement)
- Oglesby v. U.S. Dep’t of Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (exhaustion prerequisites and purpose in FOIA context)
- Hidalgo v. FBI, 344 F.3d 1256 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (exhaustion favored as bar to judicial review)
- Antoni v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 619 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2009) (FOIA exhaustion and agency-record analysis framework)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio, 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (summary judgment standard and burden on movant)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (materials showing absence of genuine issue of material fact)