Landmark Legal Foundation v. Environmental Protection Agency
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180786
| D.D.C. | 2012Background
- Landmark moved for a preliminary injunction to force EPA to preserve records, expedite processing of its FOIA request, and produce records by Dec. 24, 2012.
- Landmark’s FOIA request sought records on EPA rulemaking contemplated but not yet publicly noticed between Jan. 1 and Aug. 17, 2012.
- EPA acknowledged the FOIA request but denied expedited processing; Landmark administratively appealed and was denied for not showing primary dissemination of information.
- Landmark filed suit seeking preservation of potentially responsive records, expedited processing, and production of records; Landmark argued urgency due to politically controversial November 2012 rule reconsideration.
- EPA notified Landmark that it intended to produce all responsive documents by Jan. 31, 2013; EPA proposed a November rule reconsideration, which Landmark described as highly controversial.
- Court denies Landmark’s motion for a preliminary injunction and addresses preservation requests, finding Landmark did not show a substantial likelihood of success or irreparable harm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Landmark is entitled to expedited processing of its FOIA request. | Landmark asserts it has compelling need as a requester primarily disseminating information. | EPA argues Landmark is not primarily engaged in information dissemination; urgency is not proven. | Landmark not shown substantial likelihood of success on expedited processing. |
| Whether Landmark is entitled to an order compelling production by a near-term deadline. | Landmark seeks records by December 24, 2012 due to urgency surrounding the proposed rule. | EPA already placed Landmark first in line and plans to complete by Jan. 31, 2013; expedited relief unnecessary. | No, because no substantial likelihood of success and no irreparable harm shown. |
| Whether Landmark is entitled to a court order preserving responsive information. | Landmark requests preservation due to potential destruction of records. | EPA has begun collection, issued a litigation hold, and there is no indication of destruction. | Denied; no showing of likelihood of success or irreparable harm; preservation order unlikely needed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Washington Post v. Department of Homeland Security, 459 F. Supp. 2d 61 (D.D.C. 2006) (expedited processing standards under FOIA; denial of expedited processing reviewed de novo)
- Al-Fayed v. CIA, 254 F.3d 300 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (compelling need narrowly construed; information dissemination category limited)
- Leadership Conference on Civil Rights v. Gonzales, 404 F. Supp. 2d 246 (D.D.C. 2005) (expedited processing and priority handling in FOIA matters)
- Mova Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Shalala, 140 F.3d 1060 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (preliminary injunctive relief is extraordinary and narrowly tailored)
- Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968 (1997) (sliding scale approach to preliminary injunction factors; caution against broad relief)
- Sherley v. Sebelius, 644 F.3d 388 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (recognition of circuit split on injunction standard; not controlling here)