Muttitt v. United States Central Command
926 F. Supp. 2d 284
D.D.C.2013Background
- This FOIA suit targets the State Department’s handling of five FOIA requests by Greg Muttitt related to Iraq’s oil, energy policy, and hydrocarbon law.
- The five requests were filed between April and November 2009 seeking documents from 2006–2009, including emails and cables involving Iraqi oil law and officials.
- The Department released some records and withheld others; it also denied requests for fee waivers and expedited processing for certain requests.
- Plaintiff appealed the fee and expedited-processing denials administratively; the Department ultimately completed processing with partial disclosures and multiple withholdings.
- Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking judicial review of the Department’s responses and later moved for leave to file additional evidence; the court granted partial summary judgment for the Department and denied others, concluding several issues were moot but several withholding and search issues remained for resolution.
- The court ultimately granted summary judgment on some issues and denied it on others, with additional scheduling required for ongoing matters.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of fee waiver and expedited-processing denials | Plaintiff argues for a policy-or-practice challenge and ongoing review of denials | Defendant contends those claims are moot as processing has ceased and records released | Partially moot; Court grants summary judgment for State on fee waiver/expedited-denial aspects that are moot; policy claims rejected. |
| Adequacy of search for Request #4 | State failed to search potential records (e.g., O’Sullivan emails) in backup/retired systems | Search efforts were thorough and reasonably calculated to locate responsive documents | State Department’s search declared adequate; summary judgment in its favor on search issue. |
| Exemption 1 withholdings and segregability for certain documents | Challenged multiple Exemption 1 withholdings and argued poor segregability analysis | Withholdings supported by descriptions and segregability analysis; some documents require further substantiation | Summary judgment granted for some Exemption 1 withholdings; for others, the Court requires supplemental information or disclosure. |
| Exemption 5 (deliberative process and attorney-client) challenges | Contends ten documents improperly withheld under deliberative process and one under attorney-client | Withholding justified by privilege claims but descriptions are sometimes insufficient | Court denies summary judgment on Exemption 5 for the challenged documents, allowing supplementation or disclosure. |
| Segregability duties for non-exempt material | Argues the agency failed to segregate non-exempt portions | Agency maintains it released all segregable material | Court requires additional evidence for fourteen documents to show proper segregation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Loving v. Dep’t of Def., 550 F.3d 32 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (segregability and Vaughn index guidance; release of segregable material)
- Johnson v. Exec. Office for U.S. Att’ys, 310 F.3d 771 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (segregability and Vaughn index standards)
- Mead Data Cent., Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Air Force, 566 F.2d 242 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (segregability and non-exempt material analysis; Mead Data standard)
- A.C.L.U. v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., 628 F.3d 612 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (exemption application and reliance on agency affidavits; sufficiency of justification)
- Edmonds v. FBI, 417 F.3d 1319 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (expedited processing—scope of relief and mootness considerations)
- Landmark Legal Found. v. EPA, 272 F. Supp. 2d 59 (D.D.C. 2003) (mootness and timing issues under FOIA)
- Trans-Pac. Policing Agreement v. U.S. Customs Serv., 177 F.3d 1022 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (segregability and disclosure principles under FOIA)
- NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214 (Supreme Court 1978) (FOIA context; general disclosure principles)
- Nat’l Archives & Records Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157 (S. Ct. 2004) (transparency balanced against privacy; public interest)
- Citizens for Responsibility in Washington v. FEC, 839 F. Supp. 2d 17 (D.D.C. 2011) (mootness and timing in FOIA requests)