Landmark Legal Foundation v. Environmental Protection Agency
959 F. Supp. 2d 175
| D.D.C. | 2013Background
- Landmark Legal Foundation submitted a FOIA request (Aug 17, 2012) seeking records about EPA rules contemplated but not publicly noticed between Jan 1 and Aug 17, 2012, including communications with outside parties and any directions to delay rules until after the 2012 election.
- The parties agreed to narrow the request to “senior officials in EPA HQ,” but the scope and whether that exclusion included the Administrator (and top Office of the Administrator staff) became disputed.
- EPA produced an initial set of records (April 12, 2013) and then, after preparing its summary-judgment filings, disclosed a large supplemental set (May 15, 2013) that roughly doubled responsive records — apparently from the Administrator, Deputy Administrator, and Chief of Staff.
- EPA did not search the personal (non‑EPA) email accounts of the Administrator, Deputy Administrator, or Chief of Staff; one produced document originated from a Deputy Administrator’s personal account.
- The record contained inconsistent EPA explanations about how the FOIA request was communicated to the Office of the Administrator and why relevant searches were omitted, creating factual doubts about the adequacy and good faith of EPA’s search.
- The Court denied EPA’s motion for summary judgment and ordered limited discovery on two narrow topics tied to possible bad faith and search adequacy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of EPA's search | Landmark: EPA failed to search personal email accounts of top officials and thus search was inadequate | EPA: Searched and produced responsive documents in its possession and control; searches were reasonably tailored after narrowing | Court: Genuine disputes exist; summary judgment denied — adequacy not established due to unsearched personal accounts and withheld explanations |
| Use of personal email for official business | Landmark: Concrete evidence (an email) and external reports/Congressional probes show officials used private accounts for official business | EPA: Did not directly deny; asserted it produced responsive records from accounts in its possession/control | Court: EPA's silence plus documentary evidence rebuts presumption of good faith; discovery warranted on personal-email use |
| Exclusion of Administrator from search | Landmark: EPA may have intentionally or mistakenly excluded the Administrator and top staff from initial search despite narrowing agreement | EPA: Asserts differing accounts — initially suggested exclusion, later said Administrator was included; no clear explanation for error | Court: Inconsistent agency statements and timing of supplemental production raise possible bad faith; factual issue precludes summary judgment |
| Scope of discovery | Landmark: Requests limited discovery to determine scope and good faith of EPA search; possibly pursue sanctions | EPA: FOIA discovery is disfavored; its declarations suffice | Court: Permitted limited discovery focused on (1) whether top officials used personal emails for official business and (2) whether EPA initially excluded Administrator/Deputy/Chief of Staff from the search |
Key Cases Cited
- Morley v. CIA, 508 F.3d 1108 (D.C. Cir.) (agency must show search reasonably calculated to uncover relevant documents)
- Steinberg v. Dep’t of Justice, 23 F.3d 548 (D.C. Cir.) (adequacy inquiry asks whether search was reasonably calculated to uncover responsive records)
- Weisberg v. Dep’t of Justice, 705 F.2d 1344 (D.C. Cir.) (agency affidavits must be detailed, nonconclusory, and in good faith to carry initial burden)
- SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir.) (agency affidavits receive presumption of good faith; cannot be rebutted by pure speculation)
- Brayton v. Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, 641 F.3d 521 (D.C. Cir.) (FOIA actions commonly resolved on summary judgment)
- FBI v. Abramson, 456 U.S. 615 (U.S. Supreme Court) (FOIA exemptions narrowly construed)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. Supreme Court) (summary judgment standard)