Am. Ctr. for Equitable Treatment, Inc. v. Office of Mgmt. & Budget
Decision Date | 19 December 2017 |
Docket Number | Case No. 16–cv–01820 (APM) |
Parties | AMERICAN CENTER FOR EQUITABLE TREATMENT, INC., Plaintiff, v. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Andrew M. Grossman, Mark Wendell DeLaquil, Baker & Hostetler, LLP, Reed D. Rubinstein, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.
Joshua M. Kolsky, U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, for Defendant.
Plaintiff American Center for Equitable Treatment, Inc., brings this Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") action against Defendant Office of Management and Budget ("OMB"), following its request for disclosure of records related to, among other things, (1) the Paperwork Reduction Act, its implementing regulations, and OMB's guidance concerning the Act; (2) OMB's review of "information collection requests" and petitions for review of collected information; and (3) OMB's interpretation or application of certain regulations of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In response to Plaintiff's FOIA requests—there were three—OMB produced some records in full, some in part, and withheld others in their entirety.
Both parties have moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. The sole issue before the court is whether Defendant conducted an adequate search in response to Plaintiff's three FOIA requests. For the reasons set forth below, the court holds that OMB has not sufficiently explained why the parameters of its search—specifically, the time limits and search terms it used—were adequate to identify all responsive records. In all other respects, OMB's search was reasonable. Accordingly, the court grants in part and denies in part Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and denies in part Plaintiff's Cross–Motion for Summary Judgment.
In 2016, Plaintiff submitted three separate FOIA requests to OMB. Pl.'s Cross–Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 17 [hereinafter Pl.'s Opp'n], Pl.'s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, ECF No. 17–1 [hereinafter Pl.'s Stmt.], at 1,1 ¶ 2; Def.'s Reply and Opp'n to Pl.'s Cross–Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 20 [hereinafter Def.'s Reply], Def.'s Resp. to Pl.'s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, ECF No. 20–1 .] , ¶ 2. The requests and the agency's responses are set forth below.
On June 10, 2016, Plaintiff submitted its first request ("First Request") to OMB, seeking:
Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 16 [hereinafter Def.'s Mot], Decl. of Dominic Mancini, ECF No. 16–1 [hereinafter Mancini Decl.], Ex. 2. Plaintiff defined the relevant time period for items 1–3 to be June 1, 2012, through the date of the request, but put no time limitation on item 4. Id. Plaintiff also suggested a list of search terms, including: "(1) regulatory provisions and Information Collection Request numbers such as ‘ 37 CFR 1.111 ’ and ‘0651–0031;’ (2) the last names of OMB and PTO staff who would likely have produced or received the requested records; and (3) terms that OMB staff were likely to include in relevant documents such as ‘Manual of Patent Examination Procedure’ and ‘patent prosecution.’ " Pl.'s Stmt. 2, ¶ 4 (quoting Mancini Decl., Ex. 2); cf. Def.'s Resp. Stmt. ¶ 4.
OMB's FOIA Officer assigned the request to the agency's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs ("OIRA"). Def.'s Mot. at 3–4,2 ¶ 3; Pl.'s Stmt. at 5, ¶ 1. Over the following weeks, OMB's Office of General Counsel ("OGC") worked with subject matter experts within OIRA to understand what types of responsive records existed. Id. On August 2, 2016, OMB responded to Plaintiff's First Request and indicated that (1) with respect to items 1–3, certain responsive records were available on a website maintained by OIRA, and (2) with respect to item 4, no responsive records were identified. Def.'s Mot. at 4, ¶ 4; Pl.'s Stmt. at 5, ¶ 1; Mancini Decl., Ex. 4. Plaintiff then appealed to OMB's FOIA Officer several days later, arguing in part that many responsive documents were not available on government websites and that OMB did not make a good faith effort to search for responsive documents. Pl.'s Stmt. at 2–3, ¶ 6; see Def.'s Resp. Stmt. ¶ 6; see also Mancini Decl., Ex. 4 ( ).
Based on additional information provided in the course of Plaintiff's appeal, OGC submitted a request for a centralized search of the e-mail accounts of relevant OIRA staff. Def.'s Mot. at 4, ¶ 5; Pl.'s Stmt. at 5, ¶ 1. Using a Boolean search method, OGC directed the agency's Information Technology staff to search the e-mails of custodians "most likely to have responsive records" using a combination of terms referring to the specific regulatory provisions, e.g., " 37 CFR 1.111," and Information Collection Request ("ICR") numbers sought by Plaintiff, e.g., "0651–0031." Id. ; Pl.'s Stmt. at 3, ¶ 7; see Def.'s Resp. Stmt. ¶ 7. For this search, the agency defined the relevant time period as June 1, 2012, through June 10, 2016. Def.'s Mot. at 4, ¶ 5; Pl.'s Stmt. at 5, ¶ 1. After reviewing the records located in the search, OGC determined that a supplemental search was necessary; accordingly, the subject matter experts conducted a search of their own e-mails and identified a few other potentially responsive records. Def.'s Mot. at 4, ¶ 6; Pl.'s Stmt. at 5, ¶ 1.
On November 30, 2016, OMB responded to Plaintiff's administrative appeal and provided 424 pages of information, which were partially redacted pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 5 and 6. Pl.'s Stmt. at 3, ¶ 8; Def.'s Resp. Stmt. ¶ 8. Defendant also withheld 12 documents in full, citing Exemption 5. Id.
On August 1, 2016, Plaintiff submitted its second request ("Second Request") to OMB, seeking:
Mancini Decl., Ex. 5. Plaintiff identified the relevant time period for the Second Request to be from June 1, 2012, through the date of the request. The Second Request also provided search terms targeting: "(1) key regulatory provisions; (2) the last names of OMB and PTO staff who would likely have produced or received the requested records; and (3) terms that OMB staff were likely to include in relevant documents." Pl.'s Stmt. 3, ¶ 9; see Mancini Decl., Ex. 5; cf. Def.'s Resp. Stmt. ¶ 9.
Based on the face of the request and after consulting with subject matter experts within OIRA, OGC staff determined that the most effective way to capture responsive records was through a centralized e-mail search of relevant OIRA staff. Def.'s Mot. at 5, ¶ 10; Pl.'s Stmt. at 5, ¶ 1. Using a Boolean search method, the agency searched the e-mails of identified staff from June 1, 2012, through August 1, 2016, that contained combinations of terms referring to the specific regulatory provisions mentioned in the Second Request, as well as terms referring to the two ICR numbers mentioned in the First Request. Id. ; see Mancini Decl., Exs. 2, 5. OMB ultimately responded to Plaintiff's Second Request on December 30, 2016, and produced 252 pages of information, with partial redactions pursuant to Exemption 5. Pl.'s Stmt. at 3, ¶ 10; Def.'s Resp. Stmt. ¶ 10.
On August 2, 2016, Plaintiff submitted its third request ("Third Request") to OMB, seeking:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
New Orleans Workers' Ctr. for Racial Justice v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, Civil Action No. 15-431 (RBW)
...terms designed to identify responsive records, but that discretion ‘is not boundless.’ " Am. Ctr. for Equitable Treatment, Inc. v. Office of Mgmt. & Budget, 281 F.Supp.3d 144, 151 (D.D.C. 2017) (quoting Coffey v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 249 F.Supp.3d 488, 498 (D.D.C. 2017) (Coffey I ) ). The ......
-
Inter-Cooperative Exch. v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce
...were reasonable. Transgender L. Ctr. , 33 F.4th at 1194–95 ; cf. Am. Ctr. for Equitable Treatment, Inc. v. Off. of Mgmt. & Budget , 281 F. Supp. 3d 144, 152 (D.D.C. 2017) (ruling that a government agency had to explain why it refused to 36 F.4th 912 use "terms that are common in practice").......
-
W. Res. Legal Ctr. v. Nat'l Oceanic & Atmospheric Admin., Case No. 3:19-cv-01119-AC
...Customs Enf't, 373 F. Supp. 3d 16, 45 (D.D.C. 2019)(quoting American. Ctr. for Equitable Treatment, Inc. v. Office of Mgmt. & Budget, 281 F. Supp. 3d 144, 151 (D.D.C. 2017)(explaining that the district court could not determine if the agency's search was reasonable when most of its custodia......
-
Inter-Cooperative Exch. v. United States Dep't of Commerce
...were reasonable. Transgender L. Ctr., 2022 WL 1494722, at *4; cf. Am. Ctr. for Equitable Treatment, Inc. v. Off. of Mgmt. & Budget, 281 F.Supp.3d 144, 152 (D.D.C. 2017) (ruling that a government agency had to explain why it refused to use "terms that are common in practice"). In the end, if......