WHITE COAT WASTE PROJECT v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
1:17-cv-02264
D.D.C.Aug 29, 2019Background
- White Coat Waste Project (WCW) submitted FOIA requests to the VA’s Louis Stokes Cleveland VAMC seeking records about canine experiments, including an IACUC protocol titled “High Frequency Spinal Cord Stimulation to Restore Cough.”
- Stokes VAMC located responsive records and produced redacted documents; it withheld the principal investigator’s (PI) name under FOIA Exemptions 5 (deliberative process) and 6 (privacy).
- Over the course of administrative appeals and litigation, the parties narrowed the dispute to the single issue of whether the PI’s name in the produced protocol must be disclosed.
- VA argued Exemption 5 covers the name because the protocol is a predecisional, deliberative agency record and argued Exemption 6 protects the PI from harassment given public controversy over the experiments.
- WCW argued the PI’s name is factual (not deliberative), has minimal privacy interest, and may already be publicly disclosed (official acknowledgment/waiver).
- The Court granted summary judgment to VA on searches, Exemption 4 withholdings, and segregability, but held: Exemption 5 did not justify withholding the PI’s name; Exemption 6 required more detailed agency declarations and was held in abeyance pending supplemental affidavits. WCW’s requests for in camera review and immediate production were denied without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Exemption 5 (deliberative process) permits redaction of the PI’s name in the protocol | PI’s name is factual, not deliberative; name does not reflect agency decisionmaking | Protocols are predecisional and deliberative; names of authors/participants may be protected | Court: Exemption 5 does not justify withholding the PI’s name — name is not predecisional/deliberative |
| Whether Exemption 6 (privacy) permits withholding the PI’s name | PI has only de minimis privacy interest; name is public or business-related; official disclosure waiver | PI faces risk of harassment and threats due to controversy; name is "similar files" information warranting protection | Court: PI’s name qualifies as "similar files" but VA’s declarations are insufficient to show a substantial privacy interest; agency must submit supplemental declarations; issue held in abeyance |
| Whether VA waived exemptions by previously publishing the PI’s name (official acknowledgment) | VA/other government postings have already disclosed the PI’s name for this project, so exemptions waived | VA says published materials are not the same as the exact protocol/PI information WCW seeks; no official documented disclosure of the exact information | Court: Deferred — will address after VA supplies supplemental evidence; denied in camera review now as premature |
| Whether the VA carried its FOIA burdens as to searches, Exemption 4, and segregability | WCW did not contest adequacy of searches or Exemption 4; sought production of PI name | VA provided Vaughn indices and declarations supporting searches, Exemption 4 redactions, and segregability | Court: VA met its burden on searches, Exemption 4, and segregability; summary judgment granted to VA on these points |
Key Cases Cited
- Brayton v. Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, 641 F.3d 521 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (summary-judgment disposition in FOIA cases common)
- United States Dep’t of State v. Washington Post Co., 456 U.S. 595 (1982) (Exemption 6 "similar files" scope and privacy balancing)
- Ancient Coin Collectors Guild v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 641 F.3d 504 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (selection/organization of factual material can be deliberative)
- Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Food & Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (agency may withhold names under Exemption 6 where evidence shows risk of violence/harassment)
- Brinton v. Dep’t of State, 636 F.2d 600 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (deliberative process privilege may protect authors’ names where they reflect deliberations)
- Stolt–Nielsen Transp. Grp. v. United States, 534 F.3d 728 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (two-part test for Exemption 5 applicability)
- Mobley v. CIA, 806 F.3d 568 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (three-part test for "official acknowledgment" waiver doctrine)
- Tax Analysts v. IRS, 117 F.3d 607 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (Exemption 5 covers materials privileged from discovery)