875 F. Supp. 2d 22
D.D.C.2012Background
- Houghton, a former CPAC member, requests documents from State under FOIA and the Privacy Act about CPAC member Joan Connelly.
- March 30, 2011 FOIA request seeks Connelly-related dossiers and transcripts of proceedings; March 29, 2011 initial request replaced by the March 30 version.
- State conducted searches of Central File, CHC paper/electronic records, and CHC staff email accounts; no responsive records found for the first request and transcripts located for the second request.
- State withheld two CPAC transcripts in full under FOIA Exemption 3, arguing disclosure would undermine negotiating objectives; the transcripts are not claimed to be subject to the Privacy Act.
- Court notes potential issue whether Connelly’s emails were searched and whether emails constitute agency records; Ancient Coin Collectors Guild cited as controlling in similar context.
- Court denies State’s summary judgment motion in part due to search adequacy issue but grants in part on Exemption 3 and Privacy Act grounds, with further briefing on Connelly’s email account.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether State conducted an adequate FOIA search | Houghton argues search incomplete, especially for Connelly emails. | State asserts extensive search across Central File, CHC, and emails; declarations show reasonable search. | Search incomplete; must address Connelly emails with further search or explanation. |
| Whether CPAC transcripts are properly withheld under Exemption 3 | Transcripts should be disclosed if not exempt and segregable. | Transcripts are exempt under CPIA 2605(h) as closed CPAC proceedings; exemptions apply to all. | Transcripts are properly withheld in full under Exemption 3; no segregable portions. |
| Segregability of exempt material in the CPAC transcripts | Exemption 3 portions should be segregated from non-exempt parts. | Transcripts involve sealed CPAC proceedings; no non-exempt material exists to segregate. | No segregable portions; whole transcripts withheld. |
| Whether CPAC transcripts are subject to the Privacy Act | Transcripts describing Houghton or his rights should be disclosed as records. | Transcripts are not 'records' about Houghton under Privacy Act standards. | Transcripts are not Privacy Act records; not subject to d(1)/(d)(2) requirements. |
| Whether the Privacy Act prohibits maintaining CPAC transcripts under 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(7) | Even if not disclosed, maintaining records describing First Amendment activity could be prohibited. | Act only restricts maintenance of records described as about the individual; transcripts are not records about Houghton. | Inapplicable; transcripts are not Privacy Act records. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ancient Coin Collectors Guild v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 641 F.3d 504 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (holds 2605(h) close investigations may exempt all involved materials; informs segregability and withholding analysis)
- Fisher v. National Institute of Health, 934 F. Supp. 464 (D.D.C. 1996) (privacy act records require 'about' the individual; mere inclusion of name isn't enough)
- Tobey v. Nat’l Labor Relations Bd., 40 F.3d 469 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (definition of 'record' requires information to be about the individual with identifying particulars)