Seavey v. Department of Justice
253 F. Supp. 3d 269
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Nina Gilden Seavey, a documentary filmmaker and university professor, filed a FOIA request to the FBI in March 2015 for records concerning the FBI's role in the St. Louis anti‑war movement (1960s–1970s); she sought news‑media status and a fee waiver.
- The FBI granted news‑media status (no search fees) but denied a waiver of duplication fees; Seavey administratively appealed to DOJ OIP and received an acknowledgement but no substantive response.
- DOJ moved for partial summary judgment to deny the fee waiver; Seavey cross‑moved for partial summary judgment.
- The parties narrowed the dispute: many subparts of the original ~280 requests were withdrawn or found to have no responsive records, leaving roughly 30 subparts at issue.
- The central legal question was whether disclosure is in the public interest such that duplication fees must be waived under FOIA and DOJ regulations (28 C.F.R. § 16.10(k)).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether disclosure of requested records is "in the public interest" warranting a fee waiver under FOIA and DOJ regulation | Seavey: her documentary project will significantly enhance public understanding of FBI operations in St. Louis during COINTELPRO era; news‑media status presumed to satisfy outreach factor; local focus fills a gap and serves a broad audience | DOJ: denied fee waiver, contending Seavey did not meet the requirement that disclosure would "significantly" enhance public understanding (agency relied on potential public domain overlap) | Court granted Seavey's cross‑motion: disclosure would significantly enhance public understanding; fee waiver must be granted for the records at issue |
| Whether records are sufficiently unique (not substantially the same as publicly available material) to support waiver | Seavey: materials will add new, locally focused information not already widely publicized | DOJ: argued some material may be duplicative of public sources, so waiver not warranted | Court ruled duplication argument insufficient; public‑domain overlap does not automatically defeat waiver absent threshold dissemination showing no added public understanding |
| Whether agency procedural defenses (timeliness) barred the appeal | Seavey: timely appealed | DOJ: initially argued untimeliness but withdrew the argument | Court noted DOJ withdrew untimeliness defense; issue resolved in Seavey's favor |
| Standard of review for fee waiver denial | Seavey: de novo review of agency record before it | DOJ: agency action should be upheld if supported by record | Court applied de novo review and found agency denial unsupported; granted summary judgment for Seavey |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (movant's burden on summary judgment)
- Judicial Watch v. Rossotti, 326 F.3d 1309 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (de novo review of agency fee‑waiver denials)
- Campbell v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 164 F.3d 20 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (agency cannot deny fee waiver solely because requested documents contain substantially the same information as other documents)
- DOJ v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (FOIA's purpose to inform the public about government operations)