New York Times Co. v. U.S. Dept. of Labor, 03 Civ.8334(SAS).

Decision Date29 July 2004
Docket NumberNo. 03 Civ.8334(SAS).,03 Civ.8334(SAS).
PartiesThe NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

David E. McCraw, The New York Times Company, Legal Department, New York City, for Plaintiff.

David J. Kennedy, Assistant United States Attorney, United States Attorney's Office, Southern District of New York, New York City, for Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

SCHEINDLIN, District Judge.

The New York Times Company (the "Times") filed this action pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq., seeking to compel the Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and health Administration ("OSHA") to disclose Lost Work Day Illness and Injury ("LWDII") rates for 13,000 work sites. The Department of Labor ("DOL") now moves to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that the Times failed to exhaust its administrative remedies. In the alternative, the DOL seeks summary judgment. The Times cross-moves for summary judgment.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. OSHA and the LWDII Rate

The facts giving rise to this action are undisputed. The Occupational Safety and Health Act (the "Act"), 29 U.S.C. § 651 et seq., is intended to "assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working conditions ..." 29 U.S.C. § 651(b). OSHA is charged with carrying out these purposes. Accordingly, OSHA provides information and guidance to employers about how to initiate and improve safety and health programs, and inspects workplaces to find, and remedy, violations of the Act. See 29 U.S.C. §§ 656, 657.

As part of its efforts to identify workplaces with particularly high injury and illness rates, OSHA collects data from approximately 80,000 worksites in selected high hazard industries. See Declaration of Joseph Dubois, Director of the Office of Statistical Analysis of OSHA ("Dubois Decl."), Ex. E to the Joint Statement of Uncontested Material Facts Pursuant to Local Rule 56.1 ("56.1 Stmt."), ¶ 2. The surveyed worksites are required to complete and return a form, or enter information on OSHA's website, including (1) the total number of hours worked by all employees, and (2) data from illness and injury records. See Declaration of Miriam McD. Miller, Co-Counsel for Administrative Law, Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor ("Miller Decl."), ¶ 8; OSHA Occupational Injury and Illness Data Form, 2000, Ex. 1 to the Miller Decl.

OSHA uses the information it collects to calculate the annual LWDII rate for each reporting workplace. The rate is based on the following formula:

LWDII = (N/EH) × 200,000

where N is the total number of incidents of lost workday injuries and illnesses, and EH is the total number of hours worked by all employees. The ratio (N/EH) is multiplied by 200,000 to convert the rate to a rate per hundred full-time employees, on the assumption that a full-time employee works 2000 hours per year. See 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 8; Miller Decl. ¶ 4.

Based on data received for the year 2000, OSHA identified approximately 13,000 workplaces with LWDII rates at or above 8.0, which is "considerably greater than the national average." Memorandum of Law in Support of the United States' Motion to Dismiss the Complaint Or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment ("Gov't Mem.") at 5. Thereafter, OSHA sent letters to all 13,000 workplaces, notifying them that their LWDII rates were significantly elevated, and encouraging them to take steps to reduce those rates.1

Notably, the names and addresses of the 13,000 workplaces with high LWDII rates are available on OSHA's website. See Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint Or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment ("Gov't Reply") at 2.2 Moreover, OSHA regulations require employers to post, at the work site, the total number of incidents of lost workday injuries and illnesses. See Gov't Mem. at 17 (citing 29 C.F.R. §§ 1904.32(a)(4), 1904.35(b)(2)). Thus, using the LWDII rate and information regarding lost workday injuries and illnesses, theoretically the formula can be "reverse engineered" to calculate EH, total hours worked by all employees. For the year 2000, this information was not publicly available. See Gov't Reply at 8. However, beginning in February, 2003, OSHA required employers to post, at their work sites, the total number of employee hours worked. See id.; OSHA 300 form, Ex. B to the Supplemental Declaration of Miriam McD. Miller ("Supp. Miller Decl.").

B. The Times Request

On October 1, 2002, David Barstow, a Times reporter, filed a FOIA request with the DOL. The request sought three types of information: (1) the LWDII rates for all worksites that received a high-rate notification from OSHA in 2002; (2) the numerical ranking of work sites with high LWDII rates; and (3) the LWDII rate for Ransom Industries, L.P. ("Ransom"). See 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 1; The Times's 10/1/02 FOIA request, Ex. 1 to the 56.1 Stmt. By letter dated October 3, 2002, the DOL denied the request. See 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 2; 10/3/02 letter from DOL to Barstow, Ex. 2 to the 56.1 Stmt.

On November 12, 2002, Barstow appealed the denial to the Solicitor of Labor. See 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 3; 11/12/02 letter from Barstow to Solicitor of Labor, Ex. C to the 56.1 Stmt. Eight months later, on July 10, 2003, the DOL responded to Barstow's appeal. The DOL informed Barstow that,

[T]he LWDDII rate for each establishment is commercial information that may be protected by Exemption 4 [of FOIA]. As a result, OSHA is required to provide the 13,000 submitters with an opportunity to file objection to disclosure before a final determination can be made. Therefore, before we can take any further action with regard to this matter we need to know whether you wish to pursue it and if so, how you wish to proceed. My office is willing to work with you and OSHA to sample a reasonable number of random establishments or to contact trade associations.

* * * * * *

While we remain willing to work with you to attempt to resolve your request, the Freedom of Information Act provides for judicial review of administrative decisions. Suit may be brought in the district court of the United States in the jurisdiction in which the complainant resides, has his principal place of business, or in which the agency records are maintained, or in the District of Columbia. 5 U.S.C. ¶ 552(a)(4)(B). However, should you have any questions concerning this appeal determination or wish to work with the Department to sample establishments, you may contact Joe Plick of my staff ...

7/10/03 letter from DOL to Barstow, Ex. D to the 56.1 Stmt.3 Thereafter, the Times filed this action against the DOL, seeking to compel production of the LWDII rates for the 13,000 worksites that received OSHA notifications in 2002 as a result of their rates.

II. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
A. Applicable Law

Federal courts have jurisdiction over FOIA requests "to enjoin the agency from withholding agency records and to order the production of any agency records improperly withheld from the complainant." 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B). This jurisdiction "is dependent upon a showing that an agency has (1) `improperly;' (2) `withheld;' (3) `agency records.'" Kissinger v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136, 150, 100 S.Ct. 960, 63 L.Ed.2d 267 (1980).

Prior to judicial review, the requester must exhaust her administrative remedies. "The exhaustion requirement ... allows the top managers of an agency to correct mistakes made at lower levels and thereby obviates unnecessary judicial review." Oglesby v. United States Dep't of Army, 920 F.2d 57, 61 (D.C.Cir.1990). See also Ruotolo v. Department of Justice, 53 F.3d 4, 8 (2d Cir.1995) ("The denial of requested information must be appealed to the head of an agency[.]"); Greene v. FBI, No. 92 Civ. 3401, 1993 WL 288132, at *2 (S.D.N.Y.1993) (Sotomayor, J.).

Pursuant to the FOIA statutory scheme, an agency that receives a FOIA request must,

(i) determine within ten days (excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) ... whether to comply with such request and [] immediately notify the person making such request of such determination and the reasons therefor, and of the right of such person to appeal to the head of the agency any adverse determination; and

(ii) make a determination with respect to any appeal within twenty days (excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) after the receipt of such appeal. If on appeal the denial of the request for records is in whole or in part upheld, the agency shall notify the person making such request of the provisions for judicial review of that determination under paragraph (4) of this subsection.

5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i), (ii). "In certain circumstances, an agency may grant itself an extension of the statutory ... time period `by written notice of the person making such request setting forth the reasons for such extension and the date on which determination is expected to be dispatched.'" Greene, 1993 WL 288132, at *3 (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(B)). "If the agency has not responded within the statutory time limits," either by issuing an appealable determination or an extension, "then, under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C), the requester may bring suit," Oglesby, 920 F.2d at 62, because she is deemed to have constructively exhausted her administrative remedies, see Greene, 1993 WL 288132, at *2.

However, where an agency responds to a FOIA request late, but before suit is filed, actual exhaustion must be pursued before the requester may seek judicial relief. "[A]n administrative appeal is mandatory if the agency cures its failure to respond within the statutory period by responding to the FOIA request before suit is filed. The ten-day constructive exhaustion under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C) allows immediate recourse to the courts to compel the agency's response to a ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Biles v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., Civil No. 11–1997.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • 21 Marzo 2013
    ...(“any resulting competitive harm to JCI from the release of this ‘stale’ information would be minimal.”); N.Y. Times Co. v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 340 F.Supp.2d 394, 402 (S.D.N.Y.2004) (disclosure of information used to maintain a competitive advantage would not cause competitive injury if re......
  • Ctr. for Investigative Reporting v. U.S. Dep't of Labor
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
    • 6 Julio 2020
    ...OSHA Data/CIH, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Labor , 220 F.3d 153, 163 n.25 (3d Cir. 2000) and New York Times Co. v. U.S. Dep't of Labor , 340 F. Supp. 2d 394, 402 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).)In OSHA Data , the court stated in a footnote that "the posting of an annual injury and illness summary at the work si......
  • Biles v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., Civil No. 11-1997
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • 21 Marzo 2013
    ...competitive harm to JCI from the release of this 'stale' information would be minimal."); N.Y. Times Co. v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 340 F. Supp. 2d 394, 402 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (disclosure of information used to maintain a competitive advantage would not cause competitive injury if released four y......
  • Muzumala v. Dep't of Homeland Sec. Sec'y Alejandro Mayorkas
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • 22 Julio 2022
    ...obviates unnecessary judicial review. See McKart v. United States, 395 U.S. 185,193-94 (1969); N.Y Times Co. v. U.S. Dep't of Lab., 340 F.Supp.2d 394, 398 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (“Prior to judicial review, the [plaintiff] must exhaust h[is] administrative remedies.”). The FOIA establishes the foll......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Just the facts: the case for workplace transparency.
    • United States
    • Stanford Law Review Vol. 63 No. 2, January 2011
    • 1 Enero 2011
    ...family, or friends, and from discussing grievances "within earshot of patients"). (144.) See N.Y. Times Co. v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 340 F. Supp. 2d 394, 403 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). In dismissing the suit, the court did not need to address the claim that employees' hours of work, if actually kept s......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT