20 F. Supp. 3d 247
D.D.C.2014Background
- Judicial Watch filed a FOIA request to HUD (April 4, 2012) seeking communications and invoices related to St. Paul, disparate-impact theory, certain officials/third parties, and travel/invoice records; HUD produced some documents and issued a Vaughn index for >500 withheld/redacted items.
- HUD searched eleven program offices and additionally produced documents located during a broader congressional inquiry; HUD provided a detailed declaration by Deena S. Jih describing search terms and techniques used by individual subject-matter experts.
- HUD withheld or redacted material principally under FOIA Exemption 5 (attorney work product, attorney-client, deliberative process), and relied in part on other exemptions (not contested by plaintiff).
- Judicial Watch challenged (1) adequacy of HUD’s search and (2) sufficiency of HUD’s Vaughn index/justifications for Exemption 5 withholdings; both parties moved for summary judgment.
- The district court found HUD’s search was reasonably calculated to locate responsive records, accepted Jih’s affidavit as sufficiently detailed, and concluded the Vaughn index plus the declaration adequately justified Exemption 5 withholdings and redactions.
- The court granted HUD summary judgment and denied Judicial Watch’s cross-motion; it also found HUD met its segregability obligation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of search | HUD failed to disclose search terms/techniques and individualized searches were insufficient | HUD provided a detailed declaration listing offices, liaisons, search terms and methods; searches were targeted and reasonably calculated | HUD's search was adequate as a matter of law; Jih's declaration entitled to presumption of good faith |
| Sufficiency of Vaughn index for Exemption 5 | Vaughn entries are vague, use "buzzwords," fail to identify which privilege applies and lack required elements (e.g., specific litigation, waiver, final decision) | The Vaughn index plus Jih declaration describe document authors/recipients, content categories, and why exemptions apply without revealing privileged substance | Vaughn index and declaration sufficiently justify redactions/withholdings under Exemption 5; no need to name each privilege document-by-document |
| Segregability | HUD did not explain which records were analyzed for segregable material | HUD's declaration states it made every reasonable effort to disclose reasonably segregable, non-exempt portions | Court accepts HUD's sworn statement; segregability requirement satisfied |
| Relief and remedy if Vaughn inadequate | N/A asserted by plaintiff | If any Vaughn entry were insufficient, agency should be allowed to supplement rather than immediate disclosure | Court noted that if any entry were deficient, the proper course would be to deny summary judgment as to that document and permit HUD to elaborate; but found no such deficiency overall |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden and standard)
- Valencia-Lucena v. United States Coast Guard, 180 F.3d 321 (D.C. Cir.) (search reasonably calculated standard)
- Oglesby v. United States Dep't of the Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir.) (requirements for agency affidavit describing search)
- SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir.) (presumption of good faith for agency affidavits)
- Larson v. Dep't of State, 565 F.3d 857 (D.C. Cir.) (vaughn affidavits and exemption justification standard)
- Founding Church of Scientology v. Bell, 603 F.2d 945 (D.C. Cir.) (Vaughn index requirements)
- ACLU v. CIA, 710 F.3d 422 (D.C. Cir.) (permissible categorical descriptions in Vaughn index)
- Senate of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. United States Dep't of Justice, 823 F.2d 574 (D.C. Cir.) (conclusory assertions insufficient for privilege)
- Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Dep't of Justice, 432 F.3d 366 (D.C. Cir.) (attorney work product in FOIA context)
- Schiller v. NLRB, 964 F.2d 1205 (D.C. Cir.) (work product covers foreseeable litigation)
- Loving v. Dep't of Defense, 550 F.3d 32 (D.C. Cir.) (deliberative process privilege scope)
- Mead Data Cent., Inc. v. United States Dep't of the Air Force, 566 F.2d 242 (D.C. Cir.) (segregability requirement)