Wadhwa v. Secretary United States Department of Veterans Affairs
707 F. App'x 61
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Dr. Dom Wadhwa submitted a FOIA request to the Philadelphia VA Medical Center seeking records related to employment-discrimination complaints and disciplinary actions, including materials OEDCA "reviewed" or "considered."
- The VA produced a final agency decision, released some documents with redactions, withheld others under FOIA Exemptions 5, 6, and 7(C), and issued Glomar responses refusing to confirm or deny existence of certain employee disciplinary records.
- Wadhwa sued in the District of New Jersey. The district court initially found the VA’s search adequate but rejected some exemptive justifications and granted Wadhwa’s motion to compel as to certain disciplinary records.
- The VA submitted additional agency declarations; the district court later granted the VA’s renewed summary judgment motion, vacated the compel order, and upheld the VA’s use of Exemptions 5 and 6 and its Glomar responses.
- The Third Circuit reviewed the district court’s factual findings for substantial evidence/clear error and affirmed the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of search | Wadhwa challenged scope of VA search as incomplete | VA said it searched relevant components and explained search procedures | District court and Third Circuit: search was adequate; affirmed |
| Exemption 5 (deliberative process) | Wadhwa argued withheld drafts/internal communications should be produced | VA argued documents were predecisional and deliberative draft materials | VA properly invoked Exemption 5; withholding upheld |
| Exemption 6 / 7(C) (privacy) | Wadhwa sought identities and financial/identifying info of complainants/witnesses | VA argued disclosure would cause unwarranted privacy invasion; no public interest shown | Withholding under Exemption 6 proper; Exemption 7(C) need not be reached |
| Glomar response (existence of disciplinary records) | Wadhwa wanted confirmation of disciplinary records and documents used in discipline | VA argued even acknowledging existence would reveal private misconduct and cause privacy harm | Glomar response upheld: acknowledging existence would disclose exempt information |
| Vaughn index / in camera review | Wadhwa argued VA failed to provide a Vaughn index and court should have done in camera review | VA provided detailed declarations describing withheld materials and exemptions; court has discretion on in camera review | Declarations sufficient; no in camera inspection required; challenge rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Abdelfattah v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 488 F.3d 178 (3d Cir.) (standards for FOIA summary judgment review)
- Lame v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 767 F.2d 66 (3d Cir.) (substantial-evidence standard for reversing FOIA findings)
- Manna v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 51 F.3d 1158 (3d Cir.) (agency declarations may support summary judgment if specific and uncontested)
- Dep’t of Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protective Ass’n, 532 U.S. 1 (2001) (deliberative process privilege rationale)
- Judicial Watch, Inc. v. FDA, 449 F.3d 141 (D.C. Cir.) (definition of deliberative, predecisional materials)
- Nat’l Ass’n of Retired Fed. Emps. v. Horner, 879 F.2d 873 (D.C. Cir.) (privacy interests under Exemption 6)
- Sheet Metal Workers Int’l Ass’n v. U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 135 F.3d 891 (3d Cir.) (public-interest balancing under FOIA)
- Roth v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 642 F.3d 1161 (D.C. Cir.) (Glomar response standard)
- Wolf v. CIA, 473 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir.) (acknowledging existence must reveal exempt information to justify Glomar)
- Hinton v. Dep’t of Justice, 844 F.2d 126 (3d Cir.) (no strict formula for Vaughn index)