Reprod. Rights & Justice Project v. Dep't of HHS
| Decision Date | 29 May 2020 |
| Docket Number | Civil No. 3:18-cv-00440 (AVC) |
| Citation | 490 F.Supp.3d 516 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
| Parties | REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS AND JUSTICE PROJECT, plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF HHS, defendant. |
Cortelyou C. Kenney, Yale Law School, New Haven, CT, Priscilla Joyce Smith, Yale Law School Rrjp Clinic, Brooklyn, NY, for plaintiff.
Natalie Nicole Elicker, DOJ-USAO, New Haven, CT, for defendant.
RULING ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This is a Freedom of Information Act (hereinafter "FOIA") case in which the plaintiff, Reproductive Rights and Justice Project (hereinafter "RRJP"), claims that the defendant, the Department of Health and Human Services (hereinafter "the HHS"), unlawfully failed to disclose certain documents in response to RRJP's FOIA request. The parties have filed cross motions for summary judgment. For the reasons that follow, the parties’ motions are granted in part and denied in part.
Examination of the pleadings, affidavits, 56(a)(1) statements, depositions and exhibits accompanying the motions for summary judgment, and the responses thereto, discloses the following, undisputed material facts:
On October 25, 2017, RRJP submitted a FOIA request to the HHS. That request sought the following records:
On October 25, 2017, the HHS acknowledged receipt of the FOIA request.
On November 27, 2017, after twenty working days with no response, RRJP inquired as to the status of the request.
On December 4, 2017, the HHS indicated in a letter sent via email that it was referring the request to the HHS program support center.
RRJP contacted the program support center via voicemail and electronic mail. On December 4 and 5, 2017, RRJP exchanged phone calls with the HHS FOIA government information specialist, Glenn Voelker, who stated that the agency was working on the request and asked RRJP to narrow the third request to exclude grant-related correspondence.
On December 5, 2017, RRJP sent a narrowed construction of the third request, as requested by Mr. Voelker.
After another month, on January 2, 2018, and again on January 9, 2018, RRJP inquired as to the status of the request.
On January 9, 2018, Mr. Voelker stated by email that it would "be at least a month before your case is started."
On January 9, 2018, supervisory government information specialist Laura Magere stated by email that she "estimated that all backlogged initial FOIA requests will be completed by the end of March 2018."
On March 3, 2018, after eighty-eight working days with no production pursuant to or response to RRJP's FOIA request, RRJP initiated this lawsuit.
On August 19, 2018, the HHS stated that it expected to complete production of the requested documents by October 1, 2018.
On November 13, 2018, as the HHS requested, RRJP agreed to limit its request in order to exclude "news blasts" and "marketing emails" that would have made production more onerous for the HHS.
On November 21, the HHS delayed the final completed production date to February 15, 2019.
On February 4, 2019, the HHS delayed the final completed production date to March 14, 2019.
The HHS then requested, and RRJP consented to, an additional delay of the production deadline, to April 13, 2019.
On April 15, 2019, the HHS completed production, exclusive of withholdings, and requested an additional extension of time to produce a search declaration and Vaughn Index until June 3, 2019.
On June 3, 2019, the HHS produced a search declaration and Vaughn index indicating a total of 112 withholdings, not including withholdings of non-public telephone numbers, home addresses, and email addresses.
On June 26, 2019, RRJP agreed not to contest any withholdings except those pursuant to FOIA exemption five.
On July 5, 2019, the HHS provided RRJP with an updated Vaughn Index, including only withholdings pursuant to exemption five.
On July 10, 2019, RRJP agreed to waive its objections to all of the claimed exemption five withholdings, except for those that:
On July 19, 2019, upon the HHS's representation that it anticipated disclosing additional materials, RRJP consented to an additional extension of filing deadlines to August 7, 2019.
On July 22, 2019, upon the HHS's representation that they anticipated disclosing additional materials, RRJP consented to an additional extension of filing deadlines until August 23, 2019.
On August 7, 2019, the HHS produced four originally-withheld documents, two in full and two in part, and a final Vaughn Index including the remaining withheld documents.
On August 19, 2019, RRJP agreed not to contest the withholding of one additional document. The HHS produced a final Vaughn Index describing the twenty-one remaining contested exhibits.
The contested documents1 are as follows:
"The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
Summary judgment is appropriate if, after discovery, the nonmoving party "has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of [its] case with respect to which [it] has the burden of proof." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The court must view all inferences and ambiguities "in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Bryant v. Maffucci, 923 F.2d 979, 982 (2d Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 849, 112 S.Ct. 152, 116 L.Ed.2d 117 (1991). The nonmoving party cannot, however, " ‘rely on conclusory allegations or unsubstantiated speculation’ but ‘must come forward with specific evidence demonstrating the existence of a genuine dispute of material fact.’ "
Robinson v. Concentra Health Servs., 781 F.3d 42, 34 (2d Cir. 2015) (citation omitted).
In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the court may not ...
To continue reading
Request your trial