American Civil Liberties Union v. Department of Justice
| Decision Date | 27 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | 1:19-cv-5483 (MKV) |
| Citation | 563 F.Supp.3d 183 |
| Parties | AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION and American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Plaintiffs, v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE and Office of Justice Programs, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Sarah Hinger, Amy Belsher, Antony Philip Falconer Gemmell, Christopher Thomas Dunn, Jessica Perry, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs.
Alexander James Hogan, Stephen Seungkun Cha-Kim, United States Attorney's Office, New York, NY, for Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PART
This case involves a Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request for documents relating to grant programs administered by the Office of Justice Programs ("OJP") and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention ("OJJDP"), component offices of the Department of Justice ("DOJ"). The American Civil Liberties Union ("ACLU") and the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation (together, "Plaintiffs") believe that the grant programs are an attempt at suppressing and targeting immigrant communities, and seek information relating to grant applications. Defendants resist disclosure of the information as it relates to personal information or law enforcement tactics.
Defendants have moved for summary judgment and filed a memorandum of law in support of the motion, [Defs. Mot., ECF No. 46; Defs. Mem., ECF No. 47]. Plaintiffs have cross-moved for summary judgment [Pls. Mot., ECF No. 49; Pls. Mem., ECF No. 50]. Each Party filed a respective reply in connection with their motion, [Pls. Reply, ECF No. 53; Defs. Reply, ECF No. 52]. The cross-motions concern whether the reasons offered by the DOJ and the OJP for withholding certain documents/information under FOIA are justified and appropriate, which the Court now considers. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). For the following reasons, the Court grants in part both Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment, upholding some, but not all, of the Defendants’ invocation of exemptions from disclosure under FOIA.
In 2018, OJJDP announced "two new funding opportunities for state and local enforcement agencies." Compl. ¶ 21. The two at-issue programs are the "FY 2018 Gang Suppression: A Law Enforcement and Prosecutorial Approach To Address Gang Recruitment of Unaccompanied Alien Children" and the "FY 2018 Gang Suppression Planning Grants Program." Compl. ¶ 21. In October 2018, Plaintiffs filed a FOIA request seeking information that related to those grant programs, which are administered through the DOJ, OJP, and the OJJDP. Compl. ¶ 2, 5. Specifically, Plaintiffs requested the following information relating to eleven categories of records:
Defendants acknowledged receipt of the FOIA request but did not immediately produce any documents or otherwise respond. Compl. ¶¶ 28-33. According to Plaintiffs, they made "numerous good faith attempts to communicate" about a response and production of the requested documents to no avail. Compl. ¶ 31. Ultimately, Plaintiffs brought this case stating that the refusal to produce documents and expedite processing was a constructive denial of their FOIA request. Compl. at 11.
Thereafter, Defendants began reviewing and producing documents on a rolling basis. Pls. Mem. at 3; Defs. Mem. at 3. During the course of this litigation, the Parties have negotiated both the scope of the request and the applicability of various FOIA exemptions to the requested documents. See Pls. Mem. at 3. After spending months attempting to resolve the conflicts, the Parties have reached an impasse. [See ECF Nos. 26, 28, 29, 31, 33, 36, 40]. Plaintiffs maintain that Defendants continue to impermissibly withhold information under the auspices of FOIA exemptions. Pls. Mem. at 3. Defendants rejoin that the withholdings are proper and necessary. Defs. Mem. at 4. Both Parties filed Motions for Summary Judgment, and the Court now considers the adequacy of the withholdings under FOIA.
FOIA requires federal agencies to disclose "agency records" upon request. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a). Agencies, however, may seek to withhold information and resist disclosure under one of FOIA's enumerated exemptions. See Grand Cent. P'ship, Inc. v. Cuomo , 166 F.3d 473, 478 (2d Cir. 1999) ; see also Milner v. Dep't of Navy , 562 U.S. 562, 565, 131 S.Ct. 1259, 179 L.Ed.2d 268 (2011) ; 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). "The government bears the burden of demonstrating that an exemption applies to each item of information it seeks to withhold, and all doubts as to the applicability of the exemption must be resolved in favor of disclosure." Florez v. CIA , 829 F.3d 178, 182 (2d Cir. 2016) (quoting Ctr. for Constitutional Rights v. CIA , 765 F.3d 161, 166 (2d Cir. 2014) ).
Summary judgment is appropriate when "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). A challenge to a government agency's response to a FOIA request is usually resolved on a motion for summary judgment. See Det. Watch Network v. ICE , 215 F. Supp. 3d 256, 261 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (citing Carney v. DOJ , 19 F.3d 807, 812 (2d Cir. 1994) ). A court "may grant summary judgment in favor of an agency on the basis of agency affidavits if they contain reasonable specificity of detail rather than merely conclusory statements, and if they are not called into question by contradictory evidence in the record or by evidence of agency bad faith." Cuomo , 166 F.3d at 478 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Thus, "where the agency's submissions are ‘adequate on their face,’ district courts ‘may forgo discovery and award summary judgment on the basis of affidavits’ " N.Y. Times Co. v. DOJ , 235 F. Supp. 3d 522, 529 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (quoting Carney , 19 F.3d at 812 ). On the other hand, " ‘[s]ummary judgment in favor of the FOIA plaintiff’ is appropriate ‘when an agency seeks to protect material which, even on the agency's version of the facts, falls outside the proffered exemption.’ " New York Times v. U.S. Department of Defense , 499 F. Supp. 2d 501, 509 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (quoting Petroleum Info. Corp. v. United States Dep't of Interior , 976 F.2d 1429, 1433 (D.C. Cir. 1992) ).
The Court has carefully reviewed both Motions for Summary Judgment, the Declarations in Support, and the Reply Memoranda in Support. As is common in FOIA cases, the Defendants also have provided a so-called "Vaughn index" of the location of the withheld information identified by Bates number, the FOIA exemption cited for that withholding, and any supporting rationale. Gaylord Decl., Ex. 1. "Once a FOIA request has been made for documents, the preparation of a Vaughn index is now an accepted method for the Government to identify responsive documents and discharge its obligation to assert any claimed FOIA exemptions to the various documents withheld." New York Times Co. v. DOJ , 758 F.3d 436, 438 (2d Cir. 2014), supplemented , 762 F.3d 233 (2d Cir. 2014). "A Vaughn index describes...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Red Mountain Medical Holdings, Inc. v. Brill
... ... official standard of care adopted by the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Standard of ... a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), "a complaint must contain ... Penney department stores in direct competition with Macy's sales of ... ...