Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Energy

Decision Date31 March 2004
Docket NumberNo. CIV.A. 02-1330(PLF).,No. CIV.A. 01-0981(PLF).,No. CIV.A. 01-2545(PLF).,CIV.A. 01-0981(PLF).,CIV.A. 01-2545(PLF).,CIV.A. 02-1330(PLF).
PartiesJUDICIAL WATCH, INC., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, et al., Defendants. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., Plaintiff, v. United States Department of Energy, Defendant. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Department of Interior, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Columbia

Larry Elliot Klayman, James F. Peterson, Judicial Watch, Incorporated, Paul J. Orfanedes, Klayman & Associates, PC, Eric Robert Glitzenstein, Howard Mesnikoff Crystal, Meyer & Glitzenstein, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.

Daniel Edward Bensing, Elizabeth J. Shapiro, Gillian Flory, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendants.

OPINION

PAUL L. FRIEDMAN, District Judge.

Plaintiffs have filed the above-captioned cases to challenge the responses of the defendant departments and agencies to plaintiffs' requests for records under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C § 552 et seq. Plaintiff Natural Resources Defense Council has filed motions for summary judgment with respect to the Department of Energy, the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Land Management. All of the defendants have filed motions for summary judgment. The consolidated cases came before the Court for a motions hearing on January 26, 2004. For the reasons stated below, the Court grants in part and denies in part plaintiff Natural Resources Defense Council's motions for summary judgment and the motions for summary judgment of defendants Department of Energy, Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Department of Agriculture, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Commerce, and Department of Transportation. The Court denies the motions for summary judgment of defendants Department of the Treasury and Federal Emergency Management Agency. Defendant Office of Management and Budget has settled with plaintiff Judicial Watch and its motion for summary judgment therefore is denied as moot.

I. BACKGROUND

On January 29, 2001, President George W. Bush issued a Presidential Memorandum creating, within the Executive Office of the President, the National Energy Policy Development Group ("NEPDG"). See Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendants Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Energy ("EPA and DOE Mot.") at 3. The stated purpose of the NEPDG was to gather information and provide the President with recommendations for a national energy policy. See id. at 3. The NEPDG consisted of: the Vice President, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of Energy, the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, and the Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs. See id. at 3. The Vice President chaired the NEPDG and was authorized to invite the Chairman of FERC, the Secretary of State, and "other officers of the federal government" to participate, as appropriate. Id. at 3-4.

Representatives from each member agency participated in an NEPDG working group ("Working Group") to assist the NEPDG in formulating its recommendations to the President. See EPA and DOE Mot. at 4. The Working Group, composed of federal employees assigned from their respective agencies and departments to the NEPDG, was responsible for the NEPDG's daily operations. See id. The Working Group also was responsible for developing a draft outline for the energy policy report and for delegating tasks to the participating agencies with expertise in particular areas. See id.

Ultimately, the work-product of the nine departments and agencies involved was conveyed to the Working Group and on to the NEPDG, the Vice President and the President. See EPA and DOE Mot. at 8. On May 17, 2001, the NEPDG publicly issued the final version of the energy policy report ("Report"). See id.

A. Judicial Watch

On April 19, 2001, plaintiff Judicial Watch sent FOIA requests to the Department of Agriculture ("USDA"), the Department of Commerce ("DOC"), the Department of Energy ("DOE"), the Department of the Interior ("DOI"), the Department of the Treasury ("Treasury"), the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"), the Federal Emergency Management Agency ("FEMA") and the Office of Management and Budget ("OMB"). Judicial Watch's FOIA requests sought documents regarding:

1. [The] Bush Administration energy task force (the Energy Policy Development Group) and its deliberations.

2. Communications to and from the Bush Administration energy task force.

3. Communications between members of the task force and its administrators, Andrew Lundquist and Karen Knutson.

Judicial Watch Supplemental Amended Complaint ("J.W. Compl."), Ex. 1 at 1-2.

On May 9, 2001, Judicial Watch filed the instant action against all the departments and agencies to which it had submitted FOIA requests to compel compliance with the requirements of the FOIA. After the suit was filed, Treasury and FEMA denied plaintiff's request for a fee waiver. Treasury and FEMA stopped processing plaintiff's FOIA requests when plaintiff did not agree to pay the required fee. See Judicial Watch, Inc. v. United States Department of Energy, 191 F.Supp.2d 138, 140-141 (D.D.C.2002). As of March 5, 2002, OMB, DOI, USDA and EPA had responded to the FOIA request of Judicial Watch, but DOE, DOT and DOC were still processing the requests and had produced no documents. See id. at 140. On March 5, 2002, the Court ordered OMB, DOI and USDA to produce any additional non-exempt records and a Vaughn index to plaintiff. DOE, EPA, DOC and DOT were ordered to provide Judicial Watch with a package of non-exempt records and parts of records and a Vaughn index. Seeid. at 141. The defendants then briefed the instant motions for summary judgment.

B. Natural Resources Defense Council

On April 26, 2001, plaintiff Natural Resources Defense Council submitted FOIA requests to DOI and DOE requesting records relating to the NEPDG. See NRDC's Complaint against the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Land Management ("NRDC DOI Compl.") at ¶ 23; NRDC's Complaint against the Department of Energy ("NRDC DOE Compl.") at ¶ 14. NRDC requested the following records under the FOIA:

1. Records identifying the members of the Task Force and any and all working groups, subcommittees or other groups reporting to the Task Force;

2. Records relating to the purpose or work plan of the Task Force and any and all working groups, subcommittees or other groups formed to assist the Task Force;

3. The calendars dating from January 21, 2001 to the present of the agency head and any agency staff performing work related to the Task Force;

4. Minutes, notes or other records of meetings attended by the agency head or any agency staff relating to the work of the Task Force;

5. Records relating to any contractors or temporary full-time agency employees hired by the agency regarding the work of the Task Force, including but not limited to the contracts with these individuals, their resumes, and their SF-171 forms;

6. Records relating to communications between agency personnel and members of the Presidential transition team (a list of the individual names is attached) regarding the Task Force;

7. Records regarding any efforts by agency personnel or the Task Force to screen for conflicts of interest or bias among the individuals or groups providing advice relating to the work of the Task Force;

8. Records prepared by agency personnel relating to the work of the Task Force 9. Records received from non-agency individuals or groups, contractors or temporary full-time agency employees relating to the work of the Task Force; and

10. Records relating to solicitation of advice from individuals or groups regarding the work of the Task Force that have not already been included in response to any of the categories above.

NRDC DOI Compl. at ¶ 23; NRDC DOE Compl. at ¶ 14.1

NRDC filed a subsequent FOIA request with DOI on April 18, 2002. See NRDC DOI Compl. at ¶ 29. By this submission NRDC requested:

1. The complete calendars for Secretary Norton, Sue Ellen Wooldridge, Tom Fulton, Ann Klee, William Bettenberg and Brian Waidmann;

2. Any and all correspondence to and from Secretary Norton and other agency staff with outside parties relating to matters considered by the Task Force;

3. Any and all correspondence to and from agency staff and other government employees relating to matters considered by the Task Force;

4. Any and all minutes, notes or other records of meetings attended by agency staff relating to the work of the Task Force;

5. Financial disclosure forms to the extent they are not protected from public disclosure for Secretary Norton, Sue Ellen Wooldridge, Tom Fulton, Ann Klee, William Bettenberg and Brian Waidmann; and

6. Documents identified above that were listed in the Vaughn index provided to Judicial Watch as being partially released, but which NRDC did not receive.

NRDC DOI Compl., Ex. 2.

NRDC submitted a FOIA request to the Bureau of Land Management ("BLM") on February 14, 2002, asking for records relating to an interagency Task Force on Energy Project Streamlining ("Streamlining Task Force") which had been established by executive order on May 18, 2001 and was intended to expedite energy-related projects. See NRDC DOI Compl. at ¶ 33. It requested:

[A]ll records in the possession of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) or any of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Commerce
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • September 30, 2004
    ...process, were prepared prior to any agency actions, and thus were properly withheld under Exemption 5. Judicial Watch v. United States Dep't of Energy, 310 F.Supp.2d 271, 317 (D.D.C.2004) (briefing papers prepared for cabinet secretary); Sears, 421 U.S. at 150, 95 S.Ct. 1504 (recommendation......
  • Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of State
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • March 29, 2018
    ...Energy Policy Development Group ("NEPDG"), an entity created to advise and assist the President on national energy policy. 310 F.Supp.2d 271, 312–13 (D.D.C. 2004), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Department of Energy , 412 F.3d 125 (D.C. Cir. 2005). Before the distr......
  • Knight First Amendment Inst. at Columbia Univ. v. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • September 17, 2021
    ...Charles v. Office of Armed Forces Med. Exam'r , 730 F. Supp. 2d 205, 216 (D.D.C. 2010) (citing Jud. Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Energy , 310 F. Supp. 2d 271, 306 (D.D.C. 2004), aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds and remanded , 412 F.3d 125 (D.C. Cir. 2005) ). And, most important......
  • Center for Medicare Advocacy v. U.S. D.H.H.S.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • September 17, 2008
    ...disclosure.'" Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Transp., 2005 WL 1606915, *4 (D.D.C.2005) (citing Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Energy, 310 F.Supp.2d 271, 295 (D.D.C.2004)) (quoting Carney v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 19 F.3d 807, 815 (2d Cir.1994)) (internal quotation marks omitte......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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