Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. U.S. Dep't of Justice
| Citation | 538 F.Supp.3d 124 |
| Decision Date | 03 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 19-1552 (ABJ) |
| Parties | CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON, Plaintiff, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Conor M. Shaw, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Anne L. Weismann, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.
Elizabeth J. Shapiro, Julie Straus Harris, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, DC, for Defendant.
On Friday, March 22, 2019, Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III delivered his Report of the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election1 to the then-Attorney General of the United States, William P. Barr.2
But the Attorney General did not share it with anyone else.
Instead, before the weekend was over, he sent a letter to congressional leaders purporting to "summarize the principal conclusions" set out in the Report, compressing the approximately 200 highly detailed and painstakingly footnoted pages of Volume I – which discusses the Russian government's interference in the election and any links or coordination with the Trump campaign – and the almost 200 equally detailed pages of Volume II – which concerns acts taken by then-President Trump in connection with the investigation – into less than four pages.3 The letter asserted that the Special Counsel "did not draw a conclusion – one way or the other – as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction," and it went on to announce the Attorney General's own opinion that "the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense."4
The President then declared himself to have been fully exonerated.5
The Attorney General's characterization of what he'd hardly had time to skim, much less, study closely, prompted an immediate reaction, as politicians and pundits took to their microphones and Twitter feeds to decry what they feared was an attempt to hide the ball.
Even the customarily taciturn Special Counsel was moved to pen an extraordinary public rebuke on March 27:
The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office's work and conclusions. We communicated that concern to the Department on the morning of March 25. There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.6
Mueller called for the immediate release of his report, id. , but it remained under wraps for another three weeks.
On April 18, 2019, the Attorney General appeared before Congress to deliver the report.7 He asserted that he and the Deputy Attorney General reached the conclusion he had announced in the March 24 letter "in consultation with the Office of Legal Counsel and other Department lawyers." Id.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington ("CREW") immediately fired off a Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request for any records related to those consultations, but the Department of Justice ("DOJ") demurred on the grounds of the deliberative process and attorney-client privileges. What remains at issue today is a memorandum to the Attorney General dated March 24, 2019, that specifically addresses the subject matter of the letter transmitted to Congress.
It is time for the public to see that, too.
CREW brought this action under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552, against the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ"), seeking the production of documents that Attorney General Barr reviewed in advance of his public announcement concerning the report transmitted to him by Special Counsel Mueller. Compl. [Dkt. # 1] ¶¶ 1–2. The complaint contained two counts: the first alleged wrongful withholding of non-exempt records, and the second requested a declaration from the Court, pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, that DOJ violated FOIA by refusing to grant expedited processing of its request. Id. ¶¶ 1, 23–24.8
CREW has accepted the bulk of the agency's withholdings, but there are still two records in dispute, and cross motions for summary judgment and defendant's renewed motion to dismiss Count Two are pending before the Court. Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. and Mot. to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction [Dkt. # 15] ("Def.’s Mot."); Pl.’s Mem. in Opp. to Mot. for Summ. J. and Renewed Mot. to Dismiss [Dkt. # 16]; Pl.’s Cross Mot. for Summ. J. [Dkt. # 17] ("Pl.’s Cross Mot."). With respect to Count One, the motions address whether it was proper for defendant to withhold the two records under FOIA Exemption 5. The Court finds that the record designated as Document 6 was properly withheld, but it will order that Document 15 be produced. As to Count Two, the parties dispute whether the claim about expedited processing is now moot, and the Court agrees with the defendant and will dismiss that count.
CREW states that it is a "non-profit, non-partisan organization ... committed to protecting the rights of citizens to be informed about the activities of government officials and agencies." Compl. ¶ 4. The complaint alleges that on April 18, 2019, Attorney General Barr held a press conference to announce the public release of the Report of the Special Counsel's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and the potential obstruction of that investigation. Id. ¶ 13. During that conference, Attorney General Barr "stated ‘that the evidence developed by the Special Counsel is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.’ " Id. , quoting April 18 Remarks, supra footnote 7.
Later that day, CREW submitted a FOIA request to DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel ("OLC"), seeking "all documents pertaining to the views OLC provided Attorney General Barr on whether the evidence developed by Special Counsel Mueller is sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense." Compl. ¶ 14.
The defendant conducted the necessary search, and it identified sixty-one responsive records, thirty-two of which it produced to plaintiff with partial redactions, and twenty-eight of which it withheld in full pursuant to Exemption 5. Def.’s Mem. in Supp. of Mot. [Dkt. # 15-2] ("Def.’s Mem.") at 4–5. It referred one record to the Office of Information Policy ("OIP"), which was later produced to plaintiff with redactions. Id. at 5. Two of the documents withheld in full remain in dispute, and they are the subject of the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment. See Def.’s Mot; Pl.’s Mot. Defendant's motion is supported by the declaration of a Special Counsel within OLC who supervises that office's responses to the FOIA requests, see Decl. of Paul P. Colborn [Dkt. # 15-3] ("Colborn Decl.") ¶ 1, and the declaration of a Senior Counsel in the OIP, who has supervisory authority over the handling of FOIA requests that are subject to litigation. See Decl. of Vanessa R. Brinkmann [Dkt. # 15-4] ("Brinkmann Decl.") ¶ 1.
Summary judgment is appropriate "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). The party seeking summary judgment "bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). To defeat summary judgment, the non-moving party must "designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Id. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548.
The mere existence of a factual dispute is insufficient to preclude summary judgment. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 247–48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). A dispute is "genuine" only if a reasonable fact-finder could find for the non-moving party; a fact is "material" only if it is capable of affecting the outcome of the litigation. Id. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505 ; Laningham v. U.S. Navy , 813 F.2d 1236, 1241 (D.C. Cir. 1987). In assessing a party's motion, the court must "view the facts and draw reasonable inferences ‘in the light most favorable to the party opposing the summary judgment motion.’ " Scott v. Harris , 550 U.S. 372, 378, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007) (alterations omitted), quoting United States v. Diebold, Inc. , 369 U.S. 654, 655, 82 S.Ct. 993, 8 L.Ed.2d 176 (1962) (per curiam).
When the court is presented with cross-motions for summary judgment, it analyzes the underlying facts and inferences in each party's motion in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Anderson , 477 U.S. at 247, 106 S.Ct. 2505.
The Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") compels government agencies to release records upon request. 5 U.S.C. § 552. The act also authorizes agencies to withhold the requested records if they can demonstrate that the record falls into one of nine specific exemptions. See id. § 552(b) ; Pub. Citizen, Inc. v. Off. of Mgmt. & Budget , 598 F.3d 865, 869 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
Consistent with FOIA's presumption in favor of disclosure, the exemptions are to be construed narrowly, and the withholding agency bears the burden of showing that the claimed exemption applies. Dep't of Air Force v. Rose , 425 U.S. 352, 360–61, 96 S.Ct. 1592, 48 L.Ed.2d 11 (1976) ; Loving v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. U.S. Dep't of Justice
-
Khatchadourian v. Def. Intelligence Agency
...Washington v. United States Department of Justice the court conducted an in camera review and found unexempted material. See 538 F. Supp. 3d 124, 143 (D.D.C. 2021). Here, defendants engaged in an unprompted second-round review and produced these documents on their own accord. Khatchadourian......
-
Khatchadourian v. Def. Intelligence Agency
...Washington v. United States Department of Justice the court conducted an in camera review and found unexempted material. See 538 F.Supp.3d 124, 143 (D.D.C. 2021). defendants engaged in an unprompted second-round review and produced these documents on their own accord. Khatchadourian's argum......
-
Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. United States Dep't of Justice
... ... obstruction of justice. The contents of that analysis in ... Section II, the Department argues to us, should be protected ... from disclosure under the deliberative-process privilege. In ... the Department's view, the privilege should ... ...