Freedom Watch v. Bureau of Land Management
Civil Action No. 2016-2320
| D.D.C. | May 15, 2017Background
- Freedom Watch filed a FOIA suit seeking 22 categories of BLM/DOJ/FBI records related to Cliven Bundy and events leading to his prosecution; DOJ Civil completed production, FBI and BLM remained producing.
- The Court previously ordered BLM to produce certain "Priority Documents" (categories 15–20 plus keyword hits) and to propose a staggered interim production schedule for non‑priority documents.
- BLM reported it had completed Priority Documents early but estimated ~267,000 potentially relevant non‑priority documents and asked ~90 days to finish searches and propose interim release volumes.
- Plaintiff sought immediate/expedited production, alleging delay motives and relevance to Bundy’s criminal defense; Plaintiff had not requested expedited processing from the agencies.
- The Court declined to credit Plaintiff’s unsupported allegations of government misconduct, reiterated that FOIA is not the proper vehicle for criminal discovery, and ordered BLM to provide interim‑release volume estimates by July 14, 2017 (with a short response period for Plaintiff).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court should order immediate/expedited FOIA production | Need immediate access for Bundy’s defense and public interest justify priority | No expedited request was filed; agencies process FOIA in queue and must allocate finite resources; no basis to jump queue | Denied: no administrative expedited request to review; public interest alone insufficient to reorder processing |
| Whether FOIA is appropriate route for material needed in Bundy’s criminal defense | FOIA release is necessary for Bundy’s defense | Criminal discovery is the proper mechanism for obtaining potentially exculpatory materials | FOIA not substitute for criminal discovery; Bundy should seek materials in criminal case |
| Consequence of BLM missing 20‑day FOIA statutory period | Failure to meet 20 days warrants relief | Statutory 20‑day limit only removes exhaustion bar once suit filed; court supervises production thereafter | Court explains missing 20 days does not require immediate production beyond normal FOIA supervision |
| Whether government must produce materials already assembled for criminal discovery via FOIA | Materials already compiled in criminal case should be turned over via FOIA | FOIA production follows systematic searches of custodians; criminal discovery sets differ and duplication inefficient | Denied: not required to repurpose criminal discovery materials for FOIA; exemptions/privacy may differ |
| Prioritization of categories 15–20 | Requests these categories be prioritized | Govt allowed to propose reasonable schedule; may respond to a motion for prioritization | Court allows Plaintiff to file a notice seeking prioritization; government may respond; ordered expedited estimate of interim releases |
Key Cases Cited
- Daily Caller v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 152 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2015) (explaining that accelerating one FOIA request harms other requesters due to finite agency resources)
- Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 711 F.3d 180 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (20‑day FOIA timing rule and effect on administrative exhaustion)
- Landmark Legal Found. v. E.P.A., 959 F. Supp. 2d 175 (D.D.C. 2013) (discovery in FOIA cases is exceptional and requires a showing of bad faith)
- Justice v. I.R.S., 798 F. Supp. 2d 43 (D.D.C. 2011) (same principle: discovery permitted only upon sufficient showing of agency bad faith)
- Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, 34 F. Supp. 2d 28 (D.D.C. 1998) (addressing extreme circumstances where agency destroyed or removed responsive materials)