83 F. Supp. 3d 92
D.D.C.2015Background
- Plaintiff Hall & Associates, on behalf of the Great Bay Municipal Coalition, challenged EPA Region I’s tougher nitrogen-discharge requirements for Great Bay, alleging science misconduct in a May 4, 2012 letter and seeking related records under FOIA.
- Hall submitted nine FOIA requests to EPA HQ (one on Oct. 4 seeking records relied on by EPA HQ; seven on Oct. 22 that quoted portions of the May 4 letter and asked for records proving the quoted assertions wrong; and a ninth request also sent to Region I).
- EPA HQ produced five documents in response to the Oct. 4 request and refused to process the Oct. 22 requests as not “reasonably describ[ing]” the records and as interrogatory-like; EPA did not, at first, offer Hall an opportunity to clarify those requests.
- Hall appealed; Region I treated similarly worded requests differently — initially denying but then offering to accept clarified requests and ultimately processing some as written — while EPA HQ refused to engage in the clarification process required by its regulation.
- District Court granted summary judgment to EPA as to the adequacy of EPA’s search for the Oct. 4 request, but held EPA improperly refused to process the Oct. 22 requests and ordered EPA to process them as modified by Hall’s December 20, 2012 letter (or allow further clarification) and either disclose responsive records or assert exemptions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of EPA HQ search for Oct. 4 request | EPA found too few documents and later Region I productions show EPA missed responsive records | EPA conducted a focused search of likely custodians and followed up; small yield does not show inadequacy | Search was adequate; EPA met its burden with detailed declarations and reasonable methods |
| Refusal to process Oct. 22 requests | The Oct. 22 requests reasonably described records; Hall clarified in its appeal and Region I accepted similar clarifications | Requests were interrogatory-like, not reasonably descriptive, and Hall failed to sufficiently clarify | EPA violated its regulation by not offering to discuss/allow modification; EPA must process the Oct. 22 requests as modified (or permit further clarification) |
Key Cases Cited
- Morley v. CIA, 508 F.3d 1108 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (adequacy of FOIA search judged by whether search was reasonably calculated to uncover relevant documents)
- Steinberg v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 23 F.3d 548 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (agency affidavits should describe in detail what records were searched)
- Iturralde v. Comptroller of Currency, 315 F.3d 311 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (failure to find one document does not by itself render search inadequate)
- SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (agency declarations are afforded a presumption of good faith)
- Ancient Coin Collectors Guild v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 641 F.3d 504 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (small yields alone do not render searches inadequate)
- NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132 (U.S. 1975) (FOIA does not require agencies to create documents or answer interrogatories)