James Madison Project v. Dep't of the Treasury
| Decision Date | 13 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 19-2461 (ABJ) |
| Citation | 478 F.Supp.3d 8 |
| Parties | The JAMES MADISON PROJECT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Bradley Prescott Moss, Law Offices of Mark S. Zaid, P.C., Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.
Alan Burch, U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, Matthew Evan Kahn, U.S. Department of Justice Fraud Section, Washington, DC, for Defendant.
Plaintiffs The James Madison Project and Kadhim Shubber submitted a FOIA request to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency ("OCC") on June 7, 2018. They sought documents related to OCC's review of a number of banks in the wake of the revelation that employees at Wells Fargo, N.A. had opened millions of fake accounts in order to meet the company's sales goals. See Pls.’ FOIA Request, Ex. A to Decl. of Frank D. Vance, Jr. [Dkt. # 12-2] ("FOIA Request").
Defendant conducted a search and found 669 pages of records responsive to plaintiffs’ request, Def.’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [Dkt. # 12-1] ("Def.’s SUMF") ¶¶ 1–2, and it withheld all of these pages in full pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 5 and 8. Id. ¶ 3; Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. [Dkt. # 12] ("Def.’s Mot."). In its motion for summary judgment, defendant argues that it has complied with all of its obligations under FOIA. Def.’s Mot. Plaintiffs opposed the motion arguing that defendants have not justified the applicability of the exemptions as to 34 of the 669 withheld pages. Pls.’ Opp. to Def.’s Mot. [Dkt. # 13] ( ).
For the following reasons, the Court will grant defendant's motion for summary judgment.
The OCC is an independent bureau within the Department of the Treasury. Compl. [Dkt. # 1] ¶¶ 5–6. It supervises approximately 2,000 national banks and federal savings associations, and it is charged with ensuring that the banks it regulates operate in a safe manner in compliance with laws requiring fair treatment of their customers and fair access to credit and financial products. 12 U.S.C. § 1(a) ; see generally 12 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. OCC's supervisory activity includes annual on-site reviews of banks throughout the country to ensure compliance with applicable laws. See 12 U.S.C. §§ 481, 1820(d). OCC also has the power to assess civil money penalties for violations of law. See 12 U.S.C. § 1818.
In 2016, OCC issued a Consent Order for a Civil Money Penalty against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. for "deficiencies and unsafe or unsound practices in the Bank's risk management and oversight of the Bank's sales practices." In re Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Sioux Falls, South Dakota , Enforcement Action No. 2016-079, 2016 WL 9330727, at *1 (O.C.C. Sept. 6, 2016). Soon after, the agency announced that it would conduct a review of forty large and midsize banks and assess the sufficiency of their controls with respect to sales practices. See An Examination of Wells Fargo's Unauthorized Accounts and the Regulatory Response Before the S. Comm. on Banking, Hous., & Urban Affairs , 114th Cong. 10 (2016) () available at https://www.occ.treas.gov/news-issuances/congressional-testimony/2016/pub-test-2016-115-written.pdf. On June 5, 2018, it became known that OCC had completed this examination and compiled its findings in a report (hereinafter, the "Horizontal Review"), although it did not make the report or its findings public. See FOIA Request at 1.
Plaintiff The James Madison Project is a "non-partisan organization established in 1998 to promote government accountability and the reduction of secrecy" and to educate "the public on issues relating to intelligence and national security." Compl. ¶ 3. Plaintiff Kadhim Shubber is the U.S. Legal and Enforcement Correspondent for the Financial Times. Id. ¶ 4.
On June 7, 2018, plaintiffs submitted a FOIA request to OCC, seeking four categories of documents related to the Horizontal Review:
FOIA Request at 1–2. Plaintiffs withdrew their request for the second category of records by email on July 27, 2018. See Ex. B to Decl. of Frank D. Vance, Jr. [Dkt. # 12-2].
On February 27, 2019, OCC responded to the FOIA request by letter, stating that the agency had located 669 pages of records but that they were going to be withheld in full because the records sought were exempted by FOIA Exemptions 5 and 8. Ex. C to Decl. of Frank D. Vance, Jr. [Dkt. # 12-2]. Plaintiffs appealed this decision, and on March 21, 2019, OCC issued its final decision stating the withholdings were proper. See Ex. E to Decl. of Frank D. Vance, Jr. [Dkt. #12-2]. Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on August 14, 2019 seeking disclosure of the withheld records. See Compl.
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) (internal quotation marks omitted). 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 (internal quotation marks omitted). 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 v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 247, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).
The mere existence of a factual dispute is insufficient to preclude summary judgment. Id. at 247–48, 106 S.Ct. 2505. 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).
When considering a motion for summary judgment under FOIA, the court must conduct a de novo review of the record. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B). The court may grant summary judgment based on information provided in an agency's affidavits or declarations when they are "relatively detailed and non-conclusory," SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC , 926 F.2d 1197, 1200 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (citation omitted), and "not controverted by either contrary evidence in the record nor by evidence of agency bad faith." Military Audit Project v. Casey , 656 F.2d 724, 738 (D.C. Cir. 1981). Such affidavits or declarations are "accorded a presumption of good faith, which cannot be rebutted by purely speculative claims about the existence and discoverability of other documents." SafeCard , 926 F.2d at 1200 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
FOIA requires government agencies to release records upon request in order to "ensure an informed citizenry, vital to the functioning of a democratic society, needed to check against corruption and to hold the 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 (1978). The statute provides that: "each agency, upon any request for records which (i) reasonably describes such records and (ii) is made in accordance with published rules ... shall make the records promptly available to any person," 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A), unless the records fall within one of nine narrowly construed exemptions. See § 552(b) ; FBI v. Abramson , 456 U.S. 615, 630–31, 102 S.Ct. 2054, 72 L.Ed.2d 376 (1982). This framework "represents a balance struck by Congress between the public's right to know and the government's legitimate interest in keeping certain information confidential." Ctr. for Nat'l Sec. Studies v. U.S. Dep't of Justice , 331 F.3d 918, 925 (D.C. Cir. 2003), citing John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp. , 493 U.S. 146, 152, 110 S.Ct. 471, 107 L.Ed.2d 462 (1989).
When an agency withholds documents or parts of documents, it must explain what it is withholding and specify the statutory exemptions that apply. See Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820, 825–28 (D.C. Cir. 1973). Ultimately, an agency's justification for invoking a FOIA exemption is sufficient if it appears "logical" or "plausible." Wolf v. CIA , 473 F.3d 370, 374–75 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (citations omitted)
In this case, defendant maintains that it conducted an adequate search and that it properly applied FOIA Exemptions 5 and 8. Def.’s Mot. Plaintiffs are not challenging the adequacy of defendant's search, nor are they challenging the withholding of 635 out of 669 pages. Pls.’ Opp. at 1. Thus, there is no dispute of fact as to those issues, and the Court need not address them. See Shapiro v. U.S. Dep't of Justice , 239 F. Supp. 3d 100,...
To continue reading
Request your trial