Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility v. Office of Science and Technology Policy
881 F. Supp. 2d 8
D.D.C.2012Background
- PEER filed FOIA requests to OSTP seeking documents on GE crops on national wildlife refuges and材料 from the Agricultural Biotech Working Group.
- OSTP produced some records but withheld portions under FOIA exemptions 4, 5, and 6 for Request 11-18.
- OSTP later partially responded to Request 11-32 and withheld materials under Exemptions 2, 5, and 6.
- PEER sued (Sept. 2011) alleging inadequate response and improper withholding; the court resolved on cross-motions for summary judgment.
- Court grants OSTP’s motion and denies PEER’s across-the-board; issues concerns Vaughn index sufficiency, exemption bases, and segregability.
- Decision rendered as a memorandum opinion, granting defendant’s summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of Vaughn index descriptions | PEER argues descriptions are brief and conclusory | OSTP supplied detailed, document-specific justification | Vaughn index adequate; descriptions satisfy burden |
| Validity of Exemption 4 withholding | Exemption 4 not properly applied to BIO email | Information is confidential and commercial | Exemption 4 properly applied |
| Validity of Exemption 5 (deliberative process) withholding | Information not sufficiently deliberative | Material is predecisional and deliberative | Exemption 5 properly invoked |
| Segregability of non-exempt information | Non-exempt material not fully segregated | Careful line-by-line review produced no further segregable info | OSTP released all reasonably segregable non-exempt material |
Key Cases Cited
- King v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 830 F.2d 210 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (requires describing exemptions with specific detail)
- Johnson v. Exec. Office for U.S. Attorneys, 310 F.3d 771 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (describes adequacy of exemption justification)
- Access Reports v. DOJ, 926 F.2d 1192 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (deliberative/ predecisional material privilege)
- Mead Data Cent., Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of the Air Force, 566 F.2d 242 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (discusses agency reliance on exemptions and process for withholding)
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. NLRB, 421 U.S. 132 (U.S. 1975) (deliberative process privilege scope and purpose)
- Center for Auto Safety v. National Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 244 F.3d 144 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (assessing confidentiality and frequency of disclosure)