930 F. Supp. 2d 98
D.D.C.2013Background
- Freedom Watch sues the President and related committee (OHRDFAC) seeking access to meeting minutes and committee information under FACA.
- Defendants move for summary judgment arguing the OHRDFAC never existed and stakeholder meetings did not form a FACA advisory committee.
- The court previously held evidence insufficient and ordered more discovery; defendants later supply Wright Decl. with meetings’ details.
- Defendants contend stakeholder meetings sought individual views, not collective advice, undermining FACA applicability.
- Freedom Watch fails to provide specific discovery justification under Rule 56(d); court grants summary judgment on minutes claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the OHRDFAC existed and was a FACA advisory committee | Freedom Watch contends an advisory committee existed and produced records. | Obama defendants contend no such committee existed and meetings did not amount to a FACA advisory committee. | Yes/No determination: committee did not meet FACA criteria; interpreted as not an advisory committee. |
| Whether the meetings produced minutes or records subject to disclosure | Freedom Watch seeks minutes and attendance/participation records. | No FACA committee existed; no minutes to disclose. | Grant of summary judgment; no meeting minutes subject to FACA. |
| Whether the evidence supports summary judgment given formality and structure factors | Discovery could reveal formality or collective advice. | Evidence shows lack of formality and no group advice; meetings not advisory. | Sufficient evidence to grant summary judgment for defendants. |
| Whether Rule 56(d) discovery could defeat the motion | Freedom Watch seeks discovery to rebut evidence. | Rule 56(d) requires specific, non-conclusory showing; none provided. | Rule 56(d) relief denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Feirson v. District of Columbia, 506 F.3d 1063 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (summary judgment standard and believability of non-movant evidence in light of Anderson)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (genuine disputes require evidence beyond pleadings; inferences in favor of nonmovant)
- Pub. Citizen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 491 U.S. 440 (U.S. 1989) (factors for determining government advisory committees and public access to information)
- Ass’n of Am. Physicians & Surgeons, Inc. v. Clinton, 997 F.2d 898 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (formality, structure, and purpose determine FACA advisory status)