Seavey v. Department of Justice
266 F. Supp. 3d 241
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Nina Gilden Seavey, a documentary filmmaker and GWU professor, submitted a large FOIA request to the FBI on March 3, 2015 seeking records concerning the FBI's role in anti‑Vietnam War activity in St. Louis.
- The FBI acknowledged the request, granted media status, denied a fee waiver, and invoked "unusual circumstances," giving it 30 working days to make a determination, but did not complete the required determination steps.
- Seavey filed suit on August 12, 2015 alleging the FBI violated FOIA by failing to make a timely determination and asking the court to order an accelerated processing rate.
- The FBI processed some pages during a stay and later reported having processed 7,574 pages and identifying about 151,500 (later narrowed to ~102,385) potentially responsive pages remaining.
- The parties disputed an appropriate monthly processing rate: FBI sought 500 pages/month (its internal "large" queue policy); Seavey sought 5,000 pages/month.
- The Court found the FBI failed to timely make a FOIA determination and ordered processing at not less than 2,850 pages per month to complete production within three years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the FBI made a timely FOIA "determination" on Seavey's March 3, 2015 request | FBI failed to complete the three steps required for a determination within the statutory period, entitling Seavey to relief | Did not contest timeliness; focused on appropriate remedy | Court: FBI did not timely make a determination; summary judgment for Seavey |
| Appropriate remedy / processing rate after FOIA violation | Order the FBI to process at 5,000 pages per month to avoid multi‑year delay | Maintain its internal 500 pages/month "large" queue policy for administrative fairness and security concerns | Court adopted middle ground: at least 2,850 pages/month, to finish within three years |
| Whether FBI's 500‑page policy is a valid justification for decades‑long delay | Policy is an administrative convenience that cannot justify excessive delays | Policy promotes efficiency and fairness across requesters and safeguards for sensitive/classified material | Court: FBI failed to justify the policy with necessary data; policy insufficient to justify the delay |
| Whether treating 372 subjects as a single request is reasonable | Combining subjects into one request cannot rationally be used to impose a single cap and lengthy delay; treating them separately would have produced faster results | FBI treats subjects as tracked separately internally but processes them under one aggregated cap | Court: Unjustified; disparate treatment undermines FBI's position |
Key Cases Cited
- Citizens for Resp. & Ethics in Washington v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 711 F.3d 180 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (explains FOIA "determination" duties and timelines)
- Daily Caller v. U.S. Dep't of State, 152 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2015) (failure to meet FOIA determination deadline justifies court supervision)
- Clemente v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, 71 F. Supp. 3d 262 (D.D.C. 2014) (courts may impose processing schedules using equitable powers)
- Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. Dep't of Justice, 416 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2006) (courts play important role to ensure FOIA compliance)
- Fiduccia v. Dep't of Justice, 185 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 1999) (excessive delay effectively denies access to records and is improper)
- Elec. Priv. Info. Ctr. v. F.B.I., 933 F. Supp. 2d 42 (D.D.C. 2013) (agency anecdotal evidence insufficient to justify production pace)