Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
926 F. Supp. 2d 48
D.D.C.2013Background
- Hammer, EPA employee, alleged a hostile work environment and requested the Maida Report; EPA contracted Dr. Maida to investigate and prepared the Maida Report; Hammer sought the report via FOIA and PA requests which were denied; PEER also sought the Maida Report via FOIA/PA requests; Hammer settled with EPA January 31, 2012 broad releasing claims and waivers; court reviewed the Maida Report ex parte and in camera and to grant in part/deny in part relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hammer's claims were extinguished by the settlement. | Hammer sought relief post-settlement. | Settlement clause broad enough to bar future FOIA/PA claims by Hammer. | Hammer's claims barred; PEER's FOIA claim survives. |
| Whether PEER has Privacy Act rights to the Maida Report. | PA rights extend to PEER for the Maida Report. | PA rights belong to individuals, not organizations; Hammer waived PA rights. | PEER has no PA rights; PA claims dismissed. |
| Whether the Maida Report is exempt under FOIA Exemption 5 (deliberative process). | Some factual material should be disclosable; not all is deliberative. | Maida Report is deliberative and predecisional; protected in full. | Most of the Maida Report protected; first three sections are segregable and disclosable with redactions. |
| Whether Exemption 6 permits withholding of personal data while allowing segregable facts. | Raw facts related to Hammer should be disclosed without identifying info. | Interviews contain private information; redactions needed. | Exemption 6 applies to the non-segregable portions; personal identifiers redacted in the first three sections. |
| Whether the documents are reasonably segregable under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). | Facts can be severed from opinions. | No non-exempt material separable aside from first three sections. | First three sections must be disclosed; rest withheld or redacted per exemptions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Coastal States Gas Corp. v. Dep’t of Energy, 617 F.2d 854 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (deliberative process and public interest balancing in Exemption 5)
- Mead Data Cent., Inc. v. Dep’t of the Air Force, 566 F.2d 242 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (segregability and non-exempt material standard)
- Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Dep’t of Energy, 432 F.3d 366 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (exemption 5 applicability to intertwining factual/deliberative material)
- Playboy Enters., Inc. v. Dep’t of Justice, 677 F.2d 931 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (purposes and limits of segregability; purely factual material may be disclosed)
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. United States, 421 U.S. 132 (U.S. 1975) (Exemption 5 includes materials normally privileged in civil discovery)
- Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (establishes the threshold for withholding and the need for a Vaughn index)
- In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (concerns segregability and the propriety of disclosure of non-exempt material)
- Formaldehyde Inst. v. Dep’t Health & Human Servs., 889 F.2d 1118 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (deliberative process privilege scope under Exemption 5 (overruled on other grounds))