85 F. Supp. 3d 1074
N.D. Cal.2015Background
- Plaintiffs are environmental groups seeking records about the Central California Coast steelhead, Stanford’s Searsville Dam/Lake Water System, and NMFS (Fisheries Service) biological opinions and related materials; they filed FOIA requests to NMFS and some records were referred to Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).
- NMFS searched its San Francisco Bay Branch and North‑Central Coast Office and produced a large document set, but did not search NMFS’s Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) despite evidence OLE had an investigation containing responsive records.
- Plaintiffs challenged adequacy of NMFS’s searches, timeliness of NMFS’s and FWS’s responses and internal appeals, and asserted NMFS engaged in a pattern and practice of FOIA noncompliance; cross‑motions for partial summary judgment were filed.
- The court found NMFS’s searches for Requests 1 and 3 inadequate because NMFS failed to search OLE despite reason to know responsive records existed; summary judgment denied for those searches and granted for Requests 2 and 4 (which were not challenged).
- The court held that NMFS’s Vaughn/declensional submissions were insufficient to support withholdings under Exemptions 5 (attorney‑client and deliberative process) and 6 (personal privacy) and ordered NMFS to supplement the record; motions on those withholdings were held in abeyance.
- The court granted declaratory judgment that NMFS violated FOIA’s timeliness requirements for the subject requests and appeals, but denied declaratory relief against FWS (no pattern of tardiness shown); FWS summary judgment granted on its withholdings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of NMFS searches for Requests 1 & 3 | NMFS failed to search all offices likely to have responsive records (specifically OLE) | NMFS contends searches of San Francisco Bay Branch and North‑Central Coast Office were sufficient | Held: NMFS searches inadequate (denied summary judgment for NMFS; granted for Plaintiffs) |
| Withholdings under FOIA Exemption 6 (privacy) | Redactions (names/contact info of law enforcement officers) are improper; public interest exists | NMFS says disclosure would invade personal privacy and no public interest | Held: NMFS failed to particularize privacy interests; ordered supplementation; motion held in abeyance |
| Withholdings under FOIA Exemption 5 (attorney‑client / deliberative process) | Redactions/withholdings overbroad; agency failed to show segregability or privilege criteria met | NMFS asserts deliberative process and attorney‑client privileges for multiple records | Held: NMFS submissions insufficient on segregability and privilege; ordered supplementation; motion held in abeyance |
| Timeliness / declaratory relief for FOIA deadlines | NMFS and FWS missed statutory response and appeal deadlines; seek declaratory relief and injunction (pattern/practice) | NMFS contends statutory remedy is limited to waiver of exhaustion (per CREW); FWS argues referrals not governed same way and no pattern exists | Held: Declaratory judgment granted as to NMFS’s missed deadlines (pattern of violations); declaratory relief denied as to FWS; injunction/addressing pattern reserved to related case |
Key Cases Cited
- Yonemoto v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 686 F.3d 681 (9th Cir. 2012) (agencies must submit detailed Vaughn indices and affidavits in FOIA summary judgment).
- Zemansky v. EPA, 767 F.2d 569 (9th Cir. 1985) (FOIA requires searches reasonably calculated to uncover relevant documents).
- CREW v. Department of Justice, 711 F.3d 180 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (failure to meet FOIA time limits permits suit without exhausting administrative remedies).
- Payne Entm’t v. United States, 837 F.2d 486 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (courts have equitable powers to remedy FOIA abuses and may address pattern/practice).
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. NLRB, 421 U.S. 132 (1975) (Exemption 5 protects materials normally privileged in civil discovery).
- Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (Vaughn index requirement for withheld documents in FOIA litigation).