HARRINGTON v. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
1:20-cv-01895
D.D.C.Jan 20, 2022Background
- Kohl Harrington, a documentary filmmaker, submitted eight FOIA requests to the FDA in April–May 2020 and sued 61 days after the last request seeking faster production.
- FDA produced thousands of pages responsive to six requests; two remaining requests (nos. 2020-3793 and 2020-3795) seek CVM employee emails and are assigned to the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM).
- CVM has a very small FOIA staff, a backlog of roughly 336 requests, and heavy FOIA litigation and review obligations (including another large case by Harrington), leaving substantial pages still to review.
- The Government projected starting processing of the two outstanding requests in January 2023 and completing production by March 2023, and offered to pause processing in Harrington I for ~60 days to prioritize these two requests.
- Harrington moved for partial summary judgment seeking immediate production but did not file a reply or accept the agency’s offer to reprioritize; the Court denied the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasonableness of FDA's processing timeline | FDA must produce outstanding records immediately | Timeline is reasonable given CVM’s limited staff, large backlog, and heavy FOIA litigation; agency offered a 60‑day prioritization option | Court held FDA's timeline reasonable and denied plaintiff's motion |
| Effect of plaintiff's failure to respond to govt timeline | (Implicit) timeline unreasonable; demanded relief | Plaintiff did not reply or contest schedule on the record | Court treated failure to reply as conceding objections and noted forfeiture |
| Consequence of missing FOIA 20/30‑day determination deadline | Agency’s failure to meet statutory deadline entitles requester to immediate production | Missed deadline does not automatically require immediate production; it removes exhaustion defense per CREW but does not compel immediate release | Court agreed with Gov’t: missed deadline is not per se ground for immediate production |
| Entitlement to expedited processing | Plaintiff sought immediate relief (but did not seek expedited processing under FOIA) | No expedited processing requested or justified; plaintiff showed no "compelling need" | Court noted plaintiff did not request or qualify for expedited processing and no special priority warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Holcomb v. Powell, 433 F.3d 889 (materiality/genuine dispute standard)
- Larson v. United States Dep't of State, 565 F.3d 857 (agency affidavits can support FOIA summary judgment)
- SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (agency declarations entitled to presumption of good faith)
- U.S. Dep't of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (FOIA places burden on agency; courts review de novo)
- Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington v. FEC, 711 F.3d 180 (consequences of missing FOIA timing requirements)
- Open America v. Watergate Special Prosecution Force, 547 F.2d 605 (consideration of processing rates and effects on other requesters)
- Al‑Fayed v. CIA, 254 F.3d 300 (standard for expedited FOIA processing)
- Brayton v. Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, 641 F.3d 521 (FOIA cases often resolved on summary judgment)