Quick v. United States Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards & Technology
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37829
| D.D.C. | 2011Background
- Quick filed a FOIA request to NIST on Nov 13, 2008 seeking raw data and models used to assess the WTC 7 collapse.
- NIST conducted a multi-phase search with input from the Building and Fire Research Laboratory and located the exact data files requested.
- NIST produced 25,644 responsive data files and withheld 68,500 data files under FOIA Exemption 3 based on the NCSTA Director’s finding that disclosure might jeopardize public safety.
- On Jul 9, 2009, the NCSTA Director issued a finding identifying categories of information exempt from disclosure; a Vaughn index and segregability analysis were prepared.
- Production occurred in Jan 2010 and Apr 2010 after initial production and a later supplemental production; processing fees were paid by Quick on Feb 23, 2009.
- Quick filed suit Nov 4, 2009; the court granted NIST’s motion for summary judgment and denied Quick’s cross-motion, dismissing the action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NIST's search and production complied with FOIA | Quick asserts no explicit challenge to search/production; seeks relief only on records. | NIST conducted a reasonable search, produced disclosable records, and properly withheld the rest under Exemption 3. | NIST's search and production complied with FOIA; summary judgment for NIST affirmed. |
| Whether the 68,500 withheld files were properly nondisclosable under NCSTA Exemption 3 | Quick argues withholding might be improper or overly broad. | Director found that disclosure might jeopardize public safety; Exemption 3 applies and is properly justified. | Yes; withholding under Exemption 3 was properly justified and explained with a Vaughn index and segregability analysis. |
| Whether Quick's pattern-or-practice and standing theories moot or viable | Quick contends NIST has a pattern or practice of delaying responses and seeks relief accordingly; asserts standing to pursue such claims. | Pattern-or-practice claim not in complaint; even if raised, Quick lacks standing and the claim is moot since records were produced. | Rejects pattern-or-practice and standing arguments; claims are moot and unsupported. |
| Whether Quick is entitled to discovery in this FOIA action | Requests discovery to investigate pre-suit processing actions. | Declarations are sufficiently detailed; discovery denied. | Discovery denied; no Rule 56(d) showing established and no basis shown to alter the court’s decision. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mead Data Cent., Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Air Force, 566 F.2d 242 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (segregability and context-specific analysis under FOIA)
- Oglesby v. U.S. Dep’t of Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (reasonableness of search and production under FOIA)
- Larson v. Dep't of State, 565 F.3d 857 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (withholding decisions must be logical and plausible)
- Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Food & Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (explanation of exemptions and contextual application)
- SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. Secs. & Exch. Comm'n, 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (presumption of agency good faith in affidavits)
- Perry v. Block, 684 F.2d 121 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (mootness of relief when records are fully provided)
- Giacobbi v. Biermann, 780 F. Supp. 33 (D.D.C. 1992) (standing to challenge agency practices)
- Sierra Club v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, 384 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2004) (pattern or practice claims need concrete context and standing)