Huntington v. U.S. Department of Commerce
234 F. Supp. 3d 94
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff R. Danny Huntington filed FOIA requests with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) seeking records about the Sensitive Application Warning System (SAWS), a confidential program used to flag patent applications as sensitive. The USPTO retired SAWS in March 2015.
- USPTO produced many documents (over 4,100 pages across several productions) but redacted or withheld some materials under FOIA Exemptions 3, 5, and 6; Huntington administratively appealed and then sued seeking additional records and challenging the adequacy of the searches.
- The parties narrowed the dispute to two main issues: (1) whether the USPTO conducted an adequate search for responsive records, and (2) whether withholding certain documents under FOIA Exemption 5 (deliberative-process privilege) was proper.
- The USPTO submitted detailed declarations (primarily from John R. Heaton) describing searches of offices, SharePoint, PALM (the patent tracking system), network drives, work laptops, and certain email accounts; it explained PALM did not retain pre-2010 flag data except for backups that are retained only 60 days.
- The Court found the agency declarations were detailed but legally deficient because they did not explicitly aver that ‘‘all files likely to contain responsive documents were searched,’’ leaving a material factual dispute about adequacy of search; the Court identified specific search shortcomings (e.g., insufficient detail about whose mailboxes/laptops were searched and PTAB Chief Judge records).
- On Exemption 5, the Court held the USPTO properly withheld predecisional, deliberative material (internal discussions, draft guidance, and application-identifying information that could reveal which applications had been SAWS-flagged).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of USPTO search | Huntington: searches were incomplete; agency failed to search all likely locations (e.g., PTAB Chief Judge files, archival PALM snapshots) and declarations lack required specificity | USPTO: performed reasonable, office-targeted searches (SharePoint, PALM, network drives, emails, work laptops); PALM lacks archived pre-2010 grouping data; searched offices ‘‘reasonably likely’’ to have records | Court: Search description facially deficient because USPTO did not aver it searched all files likely to contain responsive records; material factual dispute remains; Court ordered PTAB Chief Judge records searched before further briefing |
| Scope and method details (email, laptops, archives) | Huntington: declarations omit who/which mailboxes were searched, how email is stored/archived, and treatment of older electronic/paper records | USPTO: supplemented with a declaration explaining email storage (no separate archived emails), PALM backup retention (60 days), and search date ranges; explained why older PALM snapshots are not available | Court: many specific objections unrebutted initially, but supplemental declaration resolved some; speculation about lost/archived systems insufficient to show inadequacy; nevertheless, some search descriptions lacked necessary detail |
| Requirement to search cross-referenced files | Huntington: documents referencing other files show USPTO failed to search related record systems | USPTO: FOIA does not require chasing every cross-reference; produced materials do not indicate missed particular file system | Held: Mere references do not prove inadequacy; absent evidence showing a particular file system was ignored, this claim fails |
| Withholding under FOIA Exemption 5 (deliberative-process) | Huntington: flagging or status as SAWS is not predecisional/deliberative; release would not harm deliberative process; withholding of application lists is speculative | USPTO: SAWS flags trigger internal quality checks and internal deliberations; disclosure could reveal agency deliberations and identify flagged applications, undermining policy and confidentiality | Held: Withholdings under Exemption 5 are proper — documents are predecisional and deliberative; redactions protecting application identifiers and deliberations sustained (agency interest in avoiding public inference upheld) |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (evaluating genuine dispute resolution on summary judgment)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (movant bears burden on summary judgment)
- Dep’t of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (FOIA burden on agency; de novo review)
- Larson v. Dep’t of State, 565 F.3d 857 (agency affidavits may support summary judgment in FOIA if detailed and uncontroverted)
- Valencia-Lucena v. Coast Guard, 180 F.3d 321 (agency must demonstrate search reasonably calculated to uncover responsive documents)
- Truitt v. Dep’t of State, 897 F.2d 540 (adequacy of search judged by reasonableness)
- Steinberg v. Dep’t of Justice, 23 F.3d 548 (agency need not chase every cross-reference)
- Weisberg v. Dep’t of Justice, 745 F.2d 1476 (FOIA search adequacy standard)
- Iturralde v. Comptroller of Currency, 315 F.3d 311 (search judged by methods used, not fruits)
- Oglesby v. Dep’t of Army, 920 F.2d 57 (agency must aver that all files likely to contain responsive materials were searched)
- Vaughn v. Rosen, 523 F.2d 1136 (deliberative-process privilege framework)
- NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132 (Exemption 5 covers discovery-privileged materials)
- Dep’t of Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protective Ass’n, 532 U.S. 1 (purpose of deliberative-process privilege)
- Pub. Citizen, Inc. v. Office of Mgmt. & Budget, 598 F.3d 865 (documents explaining existing policy are not deliberative)