859 F. Supp. 2d 169
D.D.C.2012Background
- Freedom Watch alleges the President established a health reform advisory committee (OHRDFAC) and seeks access to meetings, minutes, attendee lists, and participation rights under FACA.
- The 2011 opinion denied some claims and ordered supplemental briefing on mootness after ACA enactment to determine if the committee still existed.
- The Harris declaration states no formal advisory committee exists; meetings occurred at the White House and videos were publicly available.
- Freedom Watch contests the declaration's credibility and seeks discovery, including deposing Kimberley Harris.
- The court asks whether the alleged committee ceased meetings and whether claims for meetings' access and membership changes are moot, while treating minutes access as potentially ongoing.
- Judicial posture: the court will dismiss moot claims and may treat the government’s supplemental memo as a motion for summary judgment on minutes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the case is moot due to nonexistence of the committee | Freedom Watch argues ongoing injury via minutes and records; committee still exists. | Harris declaration shows no existing formal advisory committee. | Moot for advance notice and membership claims; not moot for minutes |
| Whether Freedom Watch can obtain access to minutes and related records | Requests access to minutes and attendee lists under FACA. | If no committee exists, or records are no longer held by a custodian, relief may be limited. | Merits-based; access to minutes may proceed despite mootness of other claims |
| Whether the court should treat the government's supplemental memo as a motion for summary judgment on minutes | Discovery requested; summary judgment should not be granted without notice. | Supplemental memo could be construed as summary judgment on minutes. | To show cause; discovery may be permitted; treat as potentialSummary Judgment if justified |
| Whether contempt is warranted for noncompliance with briefing orders | Defendants failed to address mootness as ordered. | Defendants complied with briefing order and could discuss mandamus relief. | No contempt; compliance acknowledged |
Key Cases Cited
- Sierra Club v. Jackson, 648 F.3d 848 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (mootness and Article III jurisdiction)
- United States v. Phillip Morris USA Inc., 566 F.3d 1095 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (live controversy and mootness standard)
- City of Erie v. Pap’s A.M., 529 U.S. 277 (S. Ct. 2000) (mootness and political question principles)
- Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Nat’l Energy Policy Dev. Grp., 219 F. Supp. 2d 20 (D.D.C. 2002) (statutory duty to disclose; injunctive relief potential)
- AAPS v. Clinton, 997 F.2d 898 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (formality criteria for advisory committees under FACA)
- Ctr. for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation v. Redd, No. 05-682 (RMC) 2005 WL 3447891 (D.D.C. 2005) (jurisdiction and standing in mootness contexts)
- Ctr. for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation v. Pray, 531 F.3d 836 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (continuing rights to materials despite committee termination)