Hainey v. United States Department of the Interior
925 F. Supp. 2d 34
D.D.C.2013Background
- Hainey submitted a February 13, 2011 FOIA request to the Department of the Interior seeking all non-exempt documents relating to vacancy announcements within the department from January 1, 2008 through January 31, 2011, and all non-exempt internal communications relating to hiring reform from January 1, 2009 through January 31, 2011.
- The Department’s March 30, 2011 response denied Hainey’s fee waiver and provided a preliminary cost estimate for BOEMRE-only records, projecting 2,373–3,164 search hours and $99,666–$132,888 in costs; it warned Hainey would be charged beyond the initial search and first 100 pages if she did not amend the request or cover fees.
- Haune y’s FOIA appeal was filed March 25, 2011; the Department processed the appeal for about six months and denied it on September 19, 2011, stating that earlier March 30, 2011 notices were returned as unclaimed and that Hainey should submit a new FOIA request with a valid return address.
- After Hainey filed suit on September 26, 2011, the Department sought to scope and narrow the request, undertaking cross-bureau estimates and determining the overall search could involve millions of pages; the agency later offered narrowed production for the vacancy portion and discussed burdensomeness.
- On April 18, 2012, the Department produced 48 spreadsheets totaling more than 30 MB, using fields aligned with Hainey’s Energy Department example, and concluded the vacancy-announcement portion was fully compliant; Hainey’s fee-related claims were considered moot since no fees were charged.
- The court granted the Department’s summary judgment on the grounds that the vacancy-announcement portion was fully satisfied and the hiring-reform portion was reasonably declined as unduly burdensome, with the overall case deemed moot on timing-related issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the FOIA response satisfied the vacancy announcements portion | Hainey contends the Department did not properly respond within the scope she narrowed. | Interior produced comprehensive spreadsheets and complied with narrowed scope, fulfilling FOIA obligations. | Yes; vacancy portion satisfied. |
| Whether the hiring reform portion was unreasonably burdensome to search | Hainey argues the full original scope should be produced. | Searching all internal communications for 25 employees over two years would be unreasonably burdensome; narrowing was appropriate. | Yes; hiring reform portion properly declined as unreasonably burdensome. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nation Magazine v. U.S. Customs Serv., 71 F.3d 885 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (agency not required to conduct unreasonably burdensome searches)
- Am. Fed’n of Gov’t Employees, Local 2782 v. Dep’t of Commerce, 907 F.2d 203 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (burdens of searching justify narrowing under FOIA)
- Richardson v. Dep’t of Justice, 730 F. Supp. 2d 225 (D.D.C. 2010) (timeliness does not set aside FOIA compliance; remedies moot after production)
- Jacobs v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 725 F. Supp. 2d 85 (D.D.C. 2010) (timeliness issues do not automatically grant relief to requester)
- Landmark Legal Found. v. EPA, 272 F. Supp. 2d 59 (D.D.C. 2003) (timeliness and completeness considerations in FOIA rulings)
- Pub. Citizen, Inc. v. Dep’t of Educ., 292 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2003) (agency may justify burdensomeness with detailed explanations)