Freedom Watch, Inc. v. Bureau of Land Management
220 F. Supp. 3d 65
| D.D.C. | 2016Background
- Freedom Watch filed a FOIA suit alleging BLM, DOJ, and FBI failed to respond to a May 9, 2014 FOIA request about the Bundy standoff.
- Plaintiff moved for expedited telephonic status conference and to take discovery from defendants’ custodians, but clarified it sought an order compelling full production of the May request now.
- Defendants answered that they had not received the May 9, 2014 FOIA request; FBI and BLM submitted detailed declarations describing searches showing no record of receiving that request.
- Plaintiff submitted a declaration by its attorney stating he faxed the request but could not produce electronic confirmation; Plaintiff alleged bad faith by defendants based on conjecture and related FOIA correspondence about a different (June) request.
- The court accepted Plaintiff’s factual assertion that the request was sent but emphasized that legal obligations under FOIA are triggered by agency receipt of the request, not by sending.
- The court found agency declarations sufficiently detailed and entitled to a presumption of good faith, denied Plaintiff’s discovery and status conference requests as premature, and lifted a temporary briefing stay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiff may take discovery into defendants’ FOIA intake/records or compel production now | Plaintiff urged discovery and immediate production, asserting defendants received the request and acted in bad faith | Defendants asserted they never received the May 9, 2014 request and submitted declarations describing searches showing no receipt | Denied. Discovery premature; plaintiff failed to rebut presumption of good faith in agency declarations |
| Whether agency receipt (versus transmission) is required to trigger FOIA obligations | Plaintiff treated transmission as sufficient to trigger obligations | Defendants: receipt is the triggering event under FOIA; absent receipt, no duty to search/produce | Court held receipt is the legally significant event; agencies had no obligation until they received the request |
| Whether agency declarations should be discredited to permit discovery | Plaintiff argued defendants lied and acted in bad faith based on political motive and related correspondence | Defendants produced detailed, non-conclusory declarations of intake procedures and searches | Court credited the declarations; plaintiff’s conjecture insufficient to overcome presumption of good faith |
| Whether a status conference is necessary to prevent dilatory tactics | Plaintiff sought an expedited conference to discuss proceeding and alleged delays | Defendants opposed; court can manage schedule without conference | Denied. No conference needed; court lifted temporary stay and set briefing schedule |
Key Cases Cited
- SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (courts afford agency declarations a presumption of good faith and have broad discretion over discovery scope)
- Brune v. IRS, 861 F.2d 1284 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (district court has broad discovery management authority)
- Meeropol v. Meese, 790 F.2d 942 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (same)
- Tax Analysts v. IRS, 410 F.3d 715 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (discovery in FOIA should not be tantamount to granting the ultimate relief sought)
- Military Audit Project v. Casey, 656 F.2d 724 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (courts must guard against discovery that effectively grants FOIA relief)
- Ground Saucer Watch, Inc. v. CIA, 692 F.2d 770 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (agency declarations entitled to presumption of good faith)
- Kissinger v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136 (U.S. 1980) (federal jurisdiction in FOIA depends on a showing that an agency improperly withheld records)
- Mobley v. CIA, 806 F.3d 568 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (conjecture is insufficient to overcome presumption of good faith for agency declarations)
- Wolf v. CIA, 569 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2008) (post‑search efforts by agency can rebut bad faith allegations)
- Judicial Watch, Inc. v. DOJ, 185 F. Supp. 2d 54 (D.D.C. 2002) (discovery in FOIA cases is rare and disfavored)
- Justice v. IRS, 798 F. Supp. 2d 43 (D.D.C. 2011) (bad faith required for discovery in FOIA matters)
- Hall v. CIA, 881 F. Supp. 2d 38 (D.D.C. 2012) (declining discovery absent a showing of bad faith)
- Gold Anti-Trust Action Comm. v. Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Reserve, 762 F. Supp. 2d 123 (D.D.C. 2011) (denying discovery about agency search adequacy when bad faith not shown)