Wadelton v. Department of State
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59023
| D.D.C. | 2013Background
- Wadelton, a Foreign Service officer since 1980, alleges unfair treatment by State Department’s BHR culminating in 2011 termination in retaliation for whistleblowing.
- Truthout joins as co-requester on Wadelton FOIA requests; three requests concern Wadelton’s employment records since 2000.
- Requests: 7/17/2012 for L, 10/1/2012 for emails/docs from BHR (2000–present), and 10/1/2012 for USM emails/docs (2004–present).
- State identified 18 responsive records for the USM request; released 8 in full, withholds 6, and coordinated on 4 others.
- On 2/4/2013 plaintiffs sought expedited processing; 2/14/2013 they appealed with expedited request; 3/22/2013 Dept. denied expedited processing.
- Court denies plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction to compel expedited processing; analyzes four-factor test for injunctive relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs show compelling need for expedited processing | Wadelton/Truthout show urgency to inform public about government activity. | No current public exigency; topics are not breaking news of broad public interest. | No likelihood of success on merits; no compelling need established. |
| Whether irreparable injury would result without expedited processing | Public discussion ongoing; delay harms public debate and disclosure. | No robust ongoing public discussion; delay would not inflict irreparable harm. | No irreparable injury shown. |
| Whether the State Department would suffer hardship or sequestration impacts FOIA processing | Expedited processing would reduce backlog and promote FOIA duties. | Sequestration could hinder agency’s ability to fulfill requests timely. | Court notes potential FOIA backlogs but finds no basis to grant expedited relief. |
| Whether expedited relief serves the public interest | FOIA serves public interest by informing about government actions. | Public interest argument insufficiently distinguishable from generic FOIA requests. | Public interest prong not satisfied; injunction denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Al-Fayed v. Central Intelligence Agency, 254 F.3d 300 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (establishes four-factor analysis and de novo review for urgency)
- CityFed Financial Corp. v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 58 F.3d 738 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (injunctions require balancing four factors with some weight on merit)
- Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Action Center v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 639 F.3d 1078 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (some injury must be shown; if not, no need to proceed to other factors)
- American Civil Liberties Union v. Department of Justice, 321 F. Supp. 2d 24 (D.D.C. 2004) (contextual examples of compelling need under FOIA expediting)
- Leadership Conference on Civil Rights v. Gonzales, 404 F. Supp. 2d 246 (D.D.C. 2005) (illustrates urgency where public concern is contemporary)
- Tripp v. Department of Defense, 193 F. Supp. 2d 229 (D.D.C. 2002) (older events insufficient for urgent public interest)