Electric Priv. Info. v. Department of Justice
| Decision Date | 16 February 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV.A. 06-00214HHK.,No. CIV.A. 06-00096HHK.,CIV.A. 06-00096HHK.,CIV.A. 06-00214HHK. |
| Citation | 416 F.Supp.2d 30 |
| Parties | ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendant. American Civil Liberties Union, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Department of Justice, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
David L. Sobel, Marcia Clare Hofmann, Arthur B. Spitzer, American Civil Liberties Union, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.
Plaintiff, Electronic Privacy Information Center ("EPIC"), brings this action against the Department of Justice ("DOJ") under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552, seeking the expedited processing and release of agency records regarding the Bush Administration's policy of conducting surveillance of domestic communications without the prior authorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Presently before the court is EPIC's motion for a preliminary injunction [# 3]. Upon consideration of the motion, the opposition thereto, the record of the case, and the argument of counsel at a hearing, the court concludes that the motion must be granted.1
On December 16, 2005, the New York Times first reported that President Bush "secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying." James Risen & Eric Lichtblau, Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts, N.Y. TIMES, Dec. 16, 2005. The New York Times also reported that the purported legal justification for the warrantless surveillance program had been developed by DOJ attorneys and officials, that DOJ "audited the N.S.A. program," and that DOJ "expanded and refined a checklist to follow in deciding whether probable cause existed to start monitoring someone's communications." Id.
In response to this news, EPIC submitted four FOIA requests that same day to four DOJ components—the Office of the Attorney General ("OAG"), the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review ("OIPR"), the Office of Legal Counsel ("OLC"), and the Office of Legal Policy ("OLP")—citing the New York Times article and requesting records "from September 11, 2001 to the present concerning a presidential order or directive authorizing the National Security Agency (`NSA'), or any other component of the intelligence community to conduct domestic surveillance without the prior authorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (`FISC')." Pl.'s Mot., Exhs. 7, 8, 9 & 10. EPIC specifically sought the following items:
(1) an audit of NSA domestic surveillance activities;
(2) guidance or a "checklist" to help decide whether probable cause exists to monitor an individual's communications;
(3) communications concerning the use of information obtained through NSA domestic surveillance as the basis for DOJ surveillance applications to the FISC; and
(4) legal memoranda, opinions or statements concerning increased domestic surveillance, including one authored by John C. Yoo shortly after September 11, 2001 discussing the potential for warrantless use of enhanced electronic surveillance techniques.
In its letters, EPIC requested expedited processing of its FOIA requests because, according to EPIC, they (1) involve a "matter of widespread and exceptional media interest in which there exist possible questions about the government's integrity which affect public confidence," id. (quoting 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(d)(1)(iv)) and (2) pertain to a matter about which there is an "urgency to inform the public about an actual or alleged Federal Government activity," and were made by "a person primarily engaged in disseminating information." Id. (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(v)(II)). In support of its requests for expedited processing, EPIC noted that the NSA surveillance program "raises serious legal questions about the government's intelligence activity and has received considerable media attention," and that "hundreds of local and national media organizations reported on this matter throughout the United States this morning." Id. at 4. Noting the pendency of congressional hearings on the NSA's warrantless domestic surveillance, EPIC also stated that "[i]t, is critical for Congress and the public to have as much information as possible about the DOJ's role in this surveillance to fully consider and determine its propriety." Id.
By letter dated December 21, 2005, the DOJ's Office of Information and Policy ("OIP") responded to EPIC's letters "on behalf of the Offices of the Attorney General and Legal Policy." Pl.'s Mot., Exh. 12, at 1. OIP wrote that "your request for expedited processing ... should be granted." Id. Notwithstanding this determination, OIP stated that "we will be unable to comply with the twenty-working-day time limit in this case." Id. OIP did not inform EPIC of an anticipated date for the completion of the processing of EPIC's FOIA requests.
Almost three weeks later, on January 6, 2006, OIPR responded to EPIC's FOIA request and stated that "the Office of Public Affairs granted your request for expedited treatment." Pl.'s Mot., Exh. 13, at 1. OIPR further stated that "your request will be reviewed ahead of others routinely processed on a first-in, first-out basis" but did not inform EPIC of an anticipated date for the completion of the processing. Id. On January 25, 2006, OLC similarly advised EPIC that its request for expedited processing had been granted. Thus, all four DOJ components to which EPIC sent its requests have conceded that expedited processing is appropriate.
To date, DOJ has neither completed the processing of EPIC's FOIA requests nor informed EPIC of an anticipated date for the completion of the processing of the requests.2 On January 19, 2006, EPIC moved for a preliminary injunction to enjoin DOJ's "unlawful attempts to impede plaintiff's efforts to obtain agency records." Pl.'s Mot. at 1. EPIC seeks an order requiring DOJ to complete the processing of its FOIA requests within twenty days and to provide a Vaughn index3 within thirty days.
As a threshold matter, DOJ questions the propriety of EPIC seeking preliminary injunctive relief in this case, arguing that "such extraordinary and draconian emergency relief" is "unprecedented." Def.'s Opp'n at 1. Further, DOJ accuses EPIC of using the motion for a preliminary injunction, which according to the DOJ seeks "a version of the ultimate relief' in the case, as a litigation tactic "to artificially accelerate the proceedings in this case." Id. at 2-3.
DOJ's argument that EPIC acts improperly in seeking a preliminary injunction is unavailing. On numerous occasions, federal courts have entertained motions for a preliminary injunction in FOIA cases and, when appropriate, have granted such motions. See ACLU v. Dep't of Defense, 339 F.Supp.2d 501, 503 (S.D.N.Y.2004) (); Aguilera v. FBI, 941 F.Supp. 144, 152-53 (D.D.C.1996) (); Cleaver v. Kelley, 427 F.Supp. 80, 81-82 (D.D.C.1976) (); see also Al-Fayed v. CIA, 2000 WL 34342564, at *6, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21476, at *19-20 (D.D.C. Sept. 20, 2000) (); Assassination Archives & Research Ctr. v. CIA, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18606, at *1-3 (D.D.C. Sept. 29, 1988) (same).4
Moreover, the D.C. Circuit has held that "[t]he FOIA imposes no limits on courts' equitable powers in enforcing its terms" and "unreasonable delays in disclosing non-exempt documents violate the intent and purpose of the FOIA, and the courts have a duty to prevent [such] abuses." Payne Enters. v. United States, 837 F.2d 486, 494 (D.C.Cir.1988) (quotation omitted). Therefore, the court does not hesitate to consider the merits of EPIC's motion.
This court may issue a preliminary injunction only when the movant demonstrates (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that it would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted; (3) that an injunction would not substantially injure other interested parties; and (4) that the public interest would be furthered by the injunction. Mova Pharm. Corp. v. Shalala, 140 F.3d 1060, 1066 (D.C.Cir.1998) (quoting CityFed Fin. Corp. v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 58 F.3d 738, 746 (D.C.Cir.1995)); see also Bancoult v. McNamara, 227 F.Supp.2d 144, 150 (D.D.C.2002). "These factors interrelate on a sliding scale and must be balanced against each other." Serono Labs., Inc. v. Shalala, 158 F.3d 1313, 1318 (D.C.Cir.1998).
Because preliminary injunctions are extraordinary forms of judicial relief, district courts should grant them sparingly. Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972, 117 S.Ct. 1865, 138 L.Ed.2d 162 (1997). Although the court has the discretion to issue or deny a preliminary injunction, Ambach v. Bell, 686 F.2d 974, 979 (D.C.Cir.1982), it is not a form of relief granted lightly.
FOIA requires agencies to "make available to the public information." 5 U.S.C. § 552(a). The purpose of providing information to the public is "to ensure an informed citizenry, vital to the functioning of a democratic society, needed to check against corruption and to hold governors accountable to the governed." NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 242, 98 S.Ct. 2311, 57 L.Ed.2d 159 (1976). To achieve this goal, FOIA requires...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Grand Jury Investigation
...Lichtblau, Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts, N.Y. Times, December 16, 2005, at Al. See also Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. Dep't of Justice, 416 F.Supp.2d 30 (D.D.C.2006) (describing the NSA 5. Gelbard was a 5 to 4 decision with Justice Brennan writing the majority opinion, Justice......
-
Martins v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs.
...general importance of an agency's faithful adherence to its statutory mandate,” Elec. Privacy Information Center v. Dep't of Justice, 416 F.Supp.2d 30, 42 (D.D.C.2006) (quoting Jacksonville Port Auth. v. Adams, 556 F.2d 52, 59 (D.C.Cir.1977)), and in the expeditious release of documents req......
-
Dunlap v. Presidential Advisory Comm'n on Election Integrity
...vital to the current and ongoing debate’ surrounding election and voter fraud," TRO Mem. at 9 (quoting Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. Dep't of Justice , 416 F.Supp.2d 30, 41 (D.D.C. 2006) ), through the Court's decision to enforce its preliminary injunction. Accordingly, Plaintiff's interest i......
-
Brennan Ctr. for Justice at NYU Sch. of Law v. Dep't of Commerce
...Court cannot "simply ... take at face value an agency's determination that more time is necessary." Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. Dep't of Justice , 416 F. Supp. 2d 30, 37 (D.D.C. 2006). Most importantly, Defendants’ argument that the burdens of other FOIA requests prevent it from processing ......