Armstrong v. Executive Office of the President, Civ. A. No. 89-142 (CRR).

Decision Date06 January 1993
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 89-142 (CRR).
Citation810 F. Supp. 335
PartiesScott ARMSTRONG, et al., Plaintiffs, v. EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Columbia

Michael E. Tankersley, with Alan B. Morrison, Public Citizen Litigation Group, Washington, DC, were on the briefs, for plaintiffs.

Jason R. Baron, Atty., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Civil Div., Washington, DC, with whom Stuart M. Gerson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jay B. Stephens, U.S. Atty., District of Columbia, and David J. Anderson, Elizabeth A. Pugh, Peter D. Coffman, and Stephen G. Harvey, Attys., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Civil Div., Washington, DC, were on the briefs, for defendants.

                                         TABLE OF CONTENTS
                I.   INTRODUCTION ....................................................  337
                II.  DISCUSSION ......................................................  339
                     A. THE STATUTORY COMMAND FROM 1943 THROUGH THE LAST
                         AMENDMENT BY CONGRESS IN 1984 SHOWS A CLEAR LEGISLATIVE
                         PURPOSE THAT RECORDS OF HISTORICAL VALUE
                         INVOLVING THE PUBLIC, REGARDLESS OF PHYSICAL FORM
                         SHALL BE PRESERVED, PARTICULARLY WHERE SUCH MATERIAL
                         REFLECTS THE FUNCTION, POLICIES, DECISIONS
                         PROCEDURES, OPERATIONS OR OTHER ACTIVITIES OF THE
                         GOVERNMENT OR BECAUSE OF THEIR INFORMATIONAL
                         VALUE........................................................  339
                     B. THE INFORMATION ON THE DEFENDANTS' PROFS, OASIS AND
                         A-1 SYSTEMS IS SUBJECT TO THE FRA BECAUSE IT MEETS
                         THE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF A RECORD.........................  340
                
                     C. THE ELECTRONIC MATERIAL CREATED OR STORED ON THE
                         DEFENDANTS' PROFS, OASIS AND A-1 SYSTEMS CONTAIN
                         INFORMATION THAT IS NOT REPRODUCED ON ANY PAPER
                         COPIES. THEREFORE, PRINTING THE SUBSTANCE OF
                         THESE MATERIALS IN PAPER FORM DOES NOT SATISFY
                         THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FRA AS IT DOES NOT SHOW
                         WHO HAS RECEIVED THE INFORMATION AND WHEN..................... 341
                     D. THE DEFENDANTS'S RECORD KEEPING PROCEDURES ARE
                         ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS BECAUSE THERE IS NO ADEQUATE
                         MANAGEMENT PROGRAM OR SUPERVISION BY RECORD
                         KEEPING PERSONNEL OF THE STAFF'S DETERMINATION
                         OF RECORD OR NON-RECORD STATUS OF COMPUTER
                         MATERIAL...................................................... 342
                     E. THE EOP'S RECORD KEEPING GUIDELINES AT THE TIME THIS
                         SUIT WAS FILED WERE ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS BECAUSE
                         THE GUIDELINES DID NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT
                         GUIDANCE TO DETERMINE WHAT WAS A FEDERAL RECORD
                         THAT MUST BE PRESERVED AND THEY ALSO PERMIT THE
                         DESTRUCTION OF FEDERAL RECORDS................................ 344
                     F. THE NSC'S RECORD KEEPING GUIDELINES AT THE TIME THIS
                         SUIT WAS FILED WERE ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS BECAUSE
                         THE GUIDELINES DID NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT
                         GUIDANCE TO DETERMINE WHAT WAS A FEDERAL RECORD
                         THAT MUST BE PRESERVED AND TO DETERMINE THE DIFFERENCE
                         BETWEEN FEDERAL RECORDS, PRESIDENTIAL
                         RECORDS AND NON-RECORD MATERIAL............................... 345
                     G. THE COURT SHALL REMAND THIS CASE TO THE ARCHIVIST
                         FOR IMMEDIATE REMEDIAL ACTION UNDER THE FRA TO
                         PREVENT THE DESTRUCTION OF FEDERAL RECORDS.................... 348
                     H. THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO ORDER THE PRESERVATION
                         OF THE DEFENDANTS' ELECTRONIC RECORDS UNTIL
                         THE ARCHIVIST CAN TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION REQUIRED
                         BY II(G) ABOVE. HOWEVER, THE COURT CANNOT
                         ORDER THE PRESERVATION OF RECORDS CREATED BY EOP
                         COMPONENTS WHOSE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY IS TO ADVISE
                         THE PRESIDENT BECAUSE THERE IS NO JUDICIAL REVIEW
                         OF THE PRA.................................................... 349
                III. CONCLUSION ....................................................... 349
                
OPINION

CHARLES R. RICHEY, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

This case is before the Court on the merits of the Plaintiffs' claims under Counts II and III of the Third Amended Complaint.1 This case was filed in 1989 against Ronald Reagan, President of the United States, inter alia, just before his term of office ended.2 In September 1989, this Court denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. This Court held that § 702 of the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") provided for judicial review of the Defendants' compliance with the Presidential Records Act ("PRA"), 44 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., and the Federal Records Act ("FRA"), 44 U.S.C. §§ 2101-2118, 2901-2910, 3101-3107, and 3301-3324. In addition, the Court determined that there were unresolved factual issues regarding whether the Defendants had complied with the recordkeeping statutes. Armstrong v. Bush, 721 F.Supp. 343 (D.D.C.1989).

Thereafter, an appeal was taken. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit approved of this Court's holding that the APA provides for limited review of the adequacy of the NSC's and EOP's recordkeeping guidelines and instructions pursuant to the FRA. Armstrong v. Bush, 924 F.2d 282, 291-293 (1991). The Court of Appeals also held that the APA does not provide judicial review of the President's compliance with the PRA. Id. at 288-291. Finally, the Court of Appeals remanded for further development of the record to determine whether the electronic communications systems operated and controlled by the Defendants were within appropriate and proper guidelines as required by law and regulations issued thereunder by the Archivist of the United States, who is also a Defendant here. Id. at 296-297.3

In other words, the basic question is whether on this record, which counsel for the parties agree is ready for a decision on the merits, the Defendants have complied with the statutory requirements and whether the guidelines are reasonable or sufficiently clear as to provide adequate guidance to personnel employed by the Defendants in their maintenance and preservation of federal records. The other issue is whether the United States Archivist has fulfilled his statutory duties under the Federal Records Act. 44 U.S.C. § 2905.

In light of the foregoing, the Plaintiffs particularly seek preservation of and access to the Defendants' computerized systems known as PROFS, OASIS, and A-1, on which the Defendants send e-mail, write documents, transmit messages inter- and intra-agency and perhaps even to people outside the official government payroll.4 These computerized systems contain transmit logs indicating to whom messages and documents were sent by date, time and hour.5 They also have Receipt logs containing the same or similar information.

While Plaintiffs are now on the Third Amended Complaint and while each side has filed cross motions for summary judgment, the Court, with consent of counsel, has combined the parties cross motions for Summary Judgment with a decision on the merits.6 The Court also determined that it was reasonable to make findings of fact and conclusions of law on the basis of the joint submissions of the parties because it was unclear, based on the parties separate submissions, whether there was a material issue of fact in dispute.7 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); see Local Rule 108(h).

After careful consideration of the foregoing, the Court, with the consent of counsel, has combined the Plaintiffs' request for a Preliminary Injunction with their request for Declaratory and Injunctive relief on the merits pursuant to Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, this opinion shall constitute the Court's findings of fact and conclusion of law pursuant to Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

II. DISCUSSION

The Defendants' record keeping guidance pursuant to the FRA is subject to review under the APA. Under the APA, the reviewing court shall compel "agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed" 5 U.S.C. § 706(1), and "hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). In examining an agency's action under the APA, the first question is whether the agency properly interpreted the statute involved. The second question is whether the agency action was arbitrary and capricious. Under this second inquiry, an agency action can be set aside if it fails to offer an adequate explanation for its action or fails to consider a relevant factor in reaching its decision, see International Fabricare Institute v. EPA, 972 F.2d 384, 389 (D.C.Cir.1992); Federal Election Comm'n v. Rose, 806 F.2d 1081, 1089 (D.C.Cir.1986), but the reviewing court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the agency. See Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Ass'n v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856, 2866, 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983); Adams House Health Care v. Sullivan, 895 F.2d 767, 770 (D.C.Cir.1990); Center for Auto Safety v. Peck, 751 F.2d 1336, 1342 (D.C.Cir.1985).

A. THE STATUTORY COMMAND FROM 1943 THROUGH THE LAST AMENDMENT BY CONGRESS IN 1984 SHOWS A CLEAR LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE THAT RECORDS OF HISTORICAL VALUE INVOLVING THE PUBLIC, REGARDLESS OF PHYSICAL FORM, SHALL BE PRESERVED, PARTICULARLY WHERE SUCH MATERIAL REFLECTS THE FUNCTION, POLICIES, DECISIONS, PROCEDURES, OPERATIONS OR OTHER ACTIVITIES OF THE GOVERNMENT OR BECAUSE OF THEIR INFORMATIONAL VALUE.

The Federal Records Act governs the creation, management and disposal of federal records.8 The FRA defines a federal record as:

all books, papers, maps, photographs, machine readable materials, or other documentary materials, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by an agency of the United States under Federal law or in
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Cobell v. Norton
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • September 17, 2002
    ...parties challenged certain federal agencies' guidelines regarding the retention of records stored on their computer systems. Armstrong, 810 F.Supp. 335 (D.D.C.1993). Ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, the Court "ORDERED, that the Plaintiff[s] shall have a Declaratory Judgment that the guide......
  • Armstrong v. Executive Office of the President, Civ. A. No. 89-142 (CRR).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • February 14, 1995
    ...not all the pertinent information from the electronic records was being saved on hard copy or paper. Armstrong v. Executive Office of the President, 810 F.Supp. 335, 341-42 (D.D.C.1993). Thereafter, another appeal was taken in which the Court of Appeals for this Circuit held that the NSC's ......
  • Armstrong v. Executive Office of the President
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • August 2, 1996
    ...and that the NSC's guidelines relating to the preservation of those records were arbitrary and capricious. Armstrong v. Executive Office of the President, 810 F.Supp. 335 (D.D.C.1993). When, four months thereafter, the Government still had not promulgated new guidelines for the management o......
  • Armstrong v. Executive Office of the President, Office of Admin.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • August 13, 1993
    ...ruling on all the FRA issues raised by the plaintiffs (the plaintiffs' FOIA claims remain undecided). See Armstrong v. Executive Office of the President, 810 F.Supp. 335 (D.D.C.1993). In that ruling, the district court first addressed whether the communications stored in these electronic co......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Recordkeeping in the 21st Century.
    • United States
    • Information Management Vol. 33 No. 3, July 1999
    • July 1, 1999
    ...what officials knew, and when they knew it," and therefore must be managed separately (Armstrong v. Executive Office of the President, 810 F. Supp. 335, 341 [D.D.C. 1993]). A higher appeals court agreed with the need for "who knew what when" information, going so far as to say that electron......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT