Hunton & Williams LLP v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
248 F. Supp. 3d 220
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Hunton & Williams sought FOIA records from EPA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), and the Department of the Army (Army) about a disputed Approved Jurisdictional Determination (AJD) for the Redwood City/Cargill Saltworks site; EPA later exercised "special case" authority over the CWA portion and had not issued that portion as of briefing.
- Hunton submitted multiple, rolling FOIA requests (2014–2015); agencies searched custodial email and files and produced many pages but withheld numerous records under FOIA Exemptions 5 (deliberative/inter-agency privileges and attorney privileges) and 6 (privacy).
- Corps, EPA, and Army moved for summary judgment defending the adequacy of searches and the claimed exemptions; Hunton moved for partial relief, in-camera review, re-review of "non-responsive" labels, and disclosure of redacted names.
- Court found agencies’ search efforts generally adequate (including limited searches of personal accounts where indicated) and denied discovery into personal communications because Hunton offered only speculation about their existence.
- Court concluded agencies’ Vaughn indices and declarations were insufficiently specific to justify many Exemption 5 withholdings (deliberative process, work product, and some attorney-client claims), ordered supplemental briefing and in-camera review of representative documents, granted Army’s attorney-client privilege claims as adequately supported, and directed disclosure/re-review of records labeled non-responsive by the Corps.
- Court also held that Army’s redaction of employee names under Exemption 6 was improper on balance and ordered disclosure of those identities (while upholding redaction of contact info).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of agency searches | Hunton: searches were incomplete; agencies failed to search personal emails/texts and limited custodians | Agencies: searches were reasonably calculated, used targeted custodians and search terms; searched personal accounts where specific facts indicated use | Court: searches generally adequate; agencies entitled to summary judgment on adequacy; no broader discovery warranted |
| Withholding under Deliberative Process Privilege (Exemption 5) | Hunton: withheld materials (including Corps’ "final" draft AJD, EPA special-case deliberations, Army legal/policy review) are not protected or are ‘‘secret law’’ | Agencies: documents are predecisional and deliberative; inter- and intra-agency deliberations would be chilled by disclosure | Court: agencies’ Vaughn indices/declarations lack the required document-specific detail; denied summary judgment and ordered supplemental briefing and in-camera review to resolve claims |
| Withholding under Attorney Work-Product (Exemption 5) | Hunton: Corps improperly treated drafts (AJD, congressional letters) as work-product | Corps: documents reflect legal strategy and litigation anticipation | Court: Corps failed to show documents were prepared "because of" litigation; denied Corps summary judgment on work-product claim but left open further proof on remand/briefing |
| Withholding under Attorney–Client Privilege (Exemption 5) | Hunton: Corps overbroad, applied privilege to emails where attorneys were only copied; insufficient specifics | Corps/Army: communications reflect confidential legal advice; Army's Vaughn is sufficiently specific | Held: Army met its burden for attorney–client privilege; Corps’ Vaughn/declarations are inadequate—denied summary judgment and directed further review/in-camera inspection |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment framework)
- Weisberg v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 627 F.2d 365 (agency burden in FOIA suits)
- Morley v. CIA, 508 F.3d 1108 (adequate search standard: reasonably calculated)
- Coastal States Gas Corp. v. Dep't of Energy, 617 F.2d 854 (scope and purpose of deliberative process privilege)
- Renegotiation Bd. v. Grumman Aircraft Eng'g Corp., 421 U.S. 168 (inter-agency deliberations can be privileged)
- Mead Data Cent., Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Air Force, 566 F.2d 242 (agency must show disclosure would harm decisionmaking)
- Competitive Enter. Inst. v. Office of Sci. & Tech. Policy, 827 F.3d 145 (personal email searches: requester must provide countervailing evidence)
- FTC v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharms. Inc., 778 F.3d 142 (work-product "because of" test)
- Wolf v. CIA, 473 F.3d 370 (agency justifications must be logical/plausible)
- SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (need to explain how deliberative materials relate to agency decisionmaking)