Edelman v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n
| Decision Date | 24 March 2016 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 14-1140 (RDM) |
| Citation | 172 F.Supp.3d 133 |
| Parties | Richard Edelman, Plaintiff, v. Securities and Exchange Commission, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Scott Allan Hodes, Scott A. Hodes, Attorney at Law, Washington, DC, John Wyeth Griggs, Griggs & Adler, P.C., Reston, VA, for Plaintiff.
Melinda Hardy, Philip J. Holmes, Securities & Exchange Commission, Office of General Counsel, Washington, DC, for Defendant.
RANDOLPH D. MOSS
Between 2011 and 2013, the limited liability corporation that owned the Empire State Building was merged with other entities in a contentious process that led to the creation of a real estate investment trust called Empire State Realty Trust, Inc. One of the shareholders who opposed the transaction is a California resident named Richard Edelman. Between January and April 2014, Edelman filed six requests under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552
, with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) for documents that related to the formation of Empire State Realty Trust. By July 2014, Edelman had received responses from the SEC to some of his requests, but not to others, and the SEC had produced no responsive documents. In an effort to compel the SEC to produce documents responsive to his requests, Edelman filed this FOIA action.
The SEC has now responded to all six of Edelman's requests and has produced over 2,000 pages of responsive records. Having done so, the Commission moves for summary judgment, arguing that it conducted an adequate search for responsive records and withheld only information it is authorized to withhold under FOIA. Edelman has cross-moved for summary judgment, arguing that the SEC has not shown that it conducted an adequate search and that it has improperly withheld records not protected by the Act. For the reasons set out below, the Court will grant in part and deny in part each party's motion.
Richard Edelman is a former investor in the Empire State Building. Compl. ¶ 3. For several years, he has operated a website that provides information to investors and the public regarding the contentious process of converting the ownership of the Empire State Building into a real estate investment trust. Compl. ¶¶ 3, 5–11; see www.empirestatebuildinginvestors.com (last updated Mar. 18, 2016). Among other things, he has posted documents filed with and issued by the SEC, which was required to approve the creation of the trust, known as the Empire State Realty Trust, Inc., or ESRT for short. Compl. ¶¶ 7–11. This action arises out of six FOIA requests that Edelman submitted to the SEC in order to obtain documents about its review of the proposed transaction. Because the procedural history of these requests differs, the Court will describe them request-by-request.
Edelman sent the first of these FOIA requests to the SEC on January 6, 2014. Dkt. 15-3 at 2 (Livornese Decl., Ex. 1). In that request, he described several filings submitted by ESRT to the SEC and sought “all comment letters from SEC staff not currently displayed on [the] SEC public website”; “all submissions from [ESRT] in response to SEC comment letters”; “all submissions from [ESRT] submitted under” 17 C.F.R. § 200.83
, which permits persons to request that filings be shielded from FOIA; “all emails to and from SEC attorney[s] David Orlick, Tom Kluck, and Angela McHale”; and “all notes from meetings” attended by those attorneys. Id. Although the SEC acknowledged the receipt of Edelman's request, and assigned it a processing number (No. 14-0343), it did not provide a substantive response within the 20-day period in which the statute requires an agency to respond to a FOIA request. Dkt. 16-2 at 15 ; id. at 6 (Edelman Aff. ¶ 19); see 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i).
Edelman appealed the constructive denial of his FOIA request on March 26, 2014. Dkt. 16-2 at 40 (Edelman Aff., Ex. H); see 17 C.F.R. § 200.80(d)(6)
. On April 16, 2014, the associate general counsel of the SEC, Richard Humes, acknowledged that the statutory timeframe had not been met and remanded the request to the agency's FOIA office for processing. Id. at 57 (Edelman Aff., Ex. J). The FOIA office did not provide a substantive response, and on July 3, 2014, Edelman brought this action. Dkt. 1. Finally, on September 30, 2014, the SEC responded to this request (and to Edelman's third FOIA request, discussed below). See Dkt. 15-3 at 12 (Livornese Decl., Ex. 5). It produced 2,034 pages of records responsive to the two requests. Id. at 13. The SEC withheld nine responsive pages in full under FOIA Exemptions 5 and 6 and redacted other material on the basis of those exemptions. Dkt. 15-1 at 5–6 (Livornese Decl. ¶ 16). The SEC informed Edelman that it had also located “notes ... from SEC meetings” attended by Orlick, Kluck, and McHale, but had determined that “the majority of these notes ... are for [the attorneys'] personal use and convenience,” and were not subject to FOIA. Dkt. 15-3 at 14 (Livornese Decl., Ex. 5).
Edelman sent a second FOIA request to the SEC on January 8, 2014. See Dkt. 15-3 at 17 (Livornese Decl., Ex. 6). He requested any exhibits filed by ESRT or the predecessor LLC “that reference the Sublease of the Empire State Building”; all submissions filed by either entity under 17 C.F.R. § 200.83
that referenced the Sublease; “any and all emails” to or from any SEC employee referencing the Sublease; “any notes from SEC meetings” in which the Sublease was mentioned; and “any notes from phone conversations or correspondence of any nature between the SEC” and both entities, or their representatives, in which the Sublease was mentioned. Id. at 17–18. The SEC acknowledged the request and assigned it a processing number (No. 14-03257), but again did not provide a substantive response within 20 days. Dkt. 16-2 at 19 (Edelman Aff., Ex. B); id. at 6 (Edelman Aff. ¶ 19).
Edelman appealed the constructive denial of his FOIA request on March 26, 2014. Dkt. 16-2 at 41 (Edelman Aff., Ex. H). On April 16, 2014, Humes acknowledged that the statutory timeframe had not been met and remanded the request to the agency's FOIA office. Id. at 57 (Edelman Aff., Ex. J). The FOIA office once again did not provide a substantive response, and on July 3, 2014, Edelman brought this action. Dkt. 1. The SEC ultimately responded to this request on September 3, 2014. Dkt. 15-3 at 20 (Livornese Decl., Ex. 7). It produced 215 pages of records that it viewed as potentially responsive to the portion of Edelman's request referring to e-mails. Id. at 21. The SEC withheld portions of these records under Exemptions 5 and 6. Id. It also explained that, with respect to the rest of Edelman's request, it had either found no records or found no records not available on the SEC's public website. Id. at 21–22.
Edelman sent his third FOIA request to the SEC on January 10, 2014. Dkt. 15-3 at 25 (Livornese Decl., Ex. 8). This request sought “any and all documents submitted by [ESRT] and granted confidential treatment” under any of three SEC rules permitting confidential filings. Id. Edelman also requested each document's submission date and subject, and the name of the SEC official who granted ESRT leave to file the document confidentially. Id. The SEC assigned the request a processing number (No. 14-03398) but did not provide a substantive response within 20 days. Dkt. 16-2 at 22 (Edelman Aff., Ex. C); id. at 6 (Edelman Aff. ¶ 19).
Edelman appealed the constructive denial of his FOIA request on March 26, 2014. Dkt. 16-2 at 42 (Edelman Aff., Ex. H). On April 16, 2014, Humes acknowledged that the statutory timeframe had not been met and remanded the request to the agency's FOIA office. Id. at 57 (Edelman Aff., Ex. J). On April 29, 2014, seemingly unaware of the appeal or the remand, the SEC responded to Edelman's request by informing him that it had “conducted a thorough search,” but had not identified any responsive records. Id. at 63 (Edelman Aff., Ex. L). The subsequent day, April 30, it sent him a letter acknowledging the remand. Id. at 65. Finally, on May 6, 2014, the SEC sent Edelman a third letter that more fully described his original request and reiterated the agency's original conclusion that no responsive records existed. See Dkt. 15-3 at 27 (Livornese Decl., Ex. 9). Edelman did not appeal, and instead filed this action. Dkt. 1.
Edelman sent a fourth FOIA request to the SEC on January 15, 2014. See Dkt. 15-3 at 5 (Livornese Decl., Ex. 2). Using the SEC's online FOIA form, Edelman selected “Consumer complaints” as the “[t]ype of document” he sought in this request. Id. ; see Request for Copies of Documents , U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, https://www.sec.gov/forms/request_public_docs (last visited Mar. 23, 2016). He described a set of complaints submitted by Empire State Building investors to the SEC during its review of the proposed transaction, and alleged that the same SEC lawyers whom he named in his first request—Orlick, Kluck, and McHale—had interviewed the investors who had submitted the complaints. See Dkt. 15-3 at 5 (Livornese Decl., Ex. 2). He requested “all notes, reports, emails or any other accounts from these interviews” and “all emails to and from the ... SEC lawyers where those complaints and interviews are discussed.” Id. The SEC assigned Edelman's request a processing number (No. 14-03452) but did not provide a substantive response within 20 days. Dkt. 16-2 at 25 (Edelman Aff., Ex. D); id. at 6 (Edelman Aff. ¶ 19).
Edelman appealed the constructive denial of his FOIA request on March 26, 2014. Dkt. 16-2 at 42 (Edelman Aff., Ex. H). On April 16, 2014, Humes acknowledged that the statutory timeframe had not been met and remanded the request to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
100Reporters LLC v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, Civil Action No.: 14–1264 (RC)
...materials prepared to assist an agency in "mak[ing] a complex decision" from materials "prepared only to inform"); Edelman v. SEC , 172 F.Supp.3d 133, 158–59 (D.D.C. 2016) (rejecting the agency's Exemption 5 argument for withholding a memorandum describing the agency's decision making proce......
-
Stein v. Cent. Intelligence Agency
...§§ 552(a) – (b). Agencies have "an obligation under FOIA to conduct an adequate search for responsive records," Edelman v. S.E.C. , 172 F. Supp. 3d 133, 144 (D.D.C. 2016), and "[a]n inadequate search for records constitutes an improper withholding" under the statute. Schoenman v. F.B.I. , 7......
-
Maalouf v. Islamic Republic of Iran, Civil Action No. 16–280 (JDB)
... ... , the equality, and dignity of the sovereign." The Schooner Exch. v. McFaddon , 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 116, 123, 3 L.Ed. 287 (1812). Comity is ... ...
-
Project on Predatory Lending of the Legal Servs. Ctr. of Harvard Law Sch. v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, Civil Action No. 17-210
..."declined either to embrace or reject the four-factor test" used by the D.C. Circuit Court in Tax Analysts. Edelman v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n , 172 F.Supp.3d 133, 149 (D.D.C. 2016). As a result, there is not a uniform standard for determining agency control of materials applied by the courts. ......
-
Chapter 9A Obtaining Discovery from Federal Agencies Apart from Discovery Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
...not as a custodian "to manage the Forest Service's records.").[22] Wilbur v. CIA, 355 F.3d 675, 678 (D.C. Cir. 2004); Edelman v. SEC, 172 F. Supp. 3d 133, 144 (D.D.C. 2016).[23] See Oglesby v. U.S. Dep't of Army, 920 F.2d 57, 68 (D.C. Cir. 1990); see also Lockett v. Wray, 271 F. Supp. 3d 20......