N.Y. Times Co. v. U.S. Dep't of Justice
Citation | 939 F.3d 479 |
Decision Date | 27 September 2019 |
Docket Number | No. 17-2066,August Term 2018,17-2066 |
Parties | The NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY and Charlie Savage Plaintiffs-Appellee-Cross-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit) |
APPEARING FOR APPELLANT: Jeannette A. Vargas, Assistant U.S. Attorney United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York New York, NY
APPEARING FOR APPELLEES: David Edward McCraw The New York Times Company New York, NY
Before: Jacobs and Calabresi, Circuit Judges, and Rakoff, District Judge.1
Plaintiffs-appellees The New York Times and reporter Charlie Savage (collectively "The Times") seek access under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") to five internal memoranda of defendant-appellant the Department of Justice ("DOJ") and accompanying exhibits. These memoranda and exhibits detail DOJ's legal reasoning and factual analysis in making the determinations, first, that it would formally investigate only two of more than one hundred alleged instances of abuse of detainees allegedly held overseas in the custody of the Central Intelligence Agency ("CIA") and, subsequently, that it would not bring criminal charges in either of those two cases.
DOJ argues, and the plaintiffs do not contest, that these memoranda and exhibits were attorney work product when drafted, which would generally shield them from disclosure under FOIA's Exemption 5. Plaintiffs argue, however, that two public statements thereafter made by then-Attorney General Eric Holder had the effect of (a) expressly adopting or incorporating by reference the contents and reasoning of the memoranda and exhibits or (b) waiving the work product protection under common law principles, in either case removing them from Exemption 5 protection. The District Court granted, in relevant part, the Times's motion for summary judgment, holding that Attorney General Holder's public statements expressly adopted the memoranda by relying on their reasoning. Subsequently, however, a panel of this Court, in American Civil Liberties Union v. National Security Agency, 925 F.3d 576 (2d Cir. 2019), clarified the reach of the "expressly adopted" exception to Exemption 5 in ways that make the district court's approach untenable.2 Nonetheless, common law principles of waiver, which are applicable to Exemption 5, require disclosure of some limited portions of the memoranda and exhibits. We therefore affirm in part and reverse in part.
The Times seeks access under FOIA to five memoranda (and accompanying exhibits) written by U.S. Attorney John Durham to then-Attorney General Eric Holder.3 These memoranda and exhibits contain Durham's recommendations not to open formal criminal investigations in all but two instances of the CIA's alleged mistreatment of detainees overseas in the years following the September 11, 2001 attacks, and not to pursue criminal charges in those two cases.
As the two District Court opinions below explain in more detail, see 138 F. Supp. 3d 462 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) and 235 F. Supp. 3d 522 (S.D.N.Y. 2017), the investigations at issue began in January 2008 when a previous Attorney General, Michael Mukasey, appointed Durham to lead a criminal investigation into the CIA's destruction of video tapes of detainee interrogations abroad. In April 2009, Holder expanded Durham's mandate, directing him to investigate potential violations of law (such as "waterboarding") in connection with the interrogations themselves. 138 F. Supp. 3d at 467. Durham proceeded to investigate 101 alleged incidents of CIA mistreatment of detainees. Id. On May 26, 2011, Durham sent a confidential memorandum to Holder and Deputy Attorney General James Cole, recommending that the Department open formal criminal investigations into only two of the alleged incidents — in both of which the respective detainee had died in custody — and to close the informal preliminary investigations of the other ninety-nine. Id. Durham also provided two additional reports, with a total of eleven exhibits, dated December 14, 2010 and May 26, 2011, detailing further support for his recommendations to open the two formal investigations. Id.
On June 30, 2011, Holder issued a press release accepting Durham's recommendations. 138 F. Supp. 3d at 467-68. In pertinent part, the release read as follows:
Statement of the Attorney General Regarding Investigation into the Interrogation of Certain Detainees, Dep't Just. (June 30, 2011).
Over the next fourteen months, Durham further investigated the two detainee deaths, but ultimately concluded that DOJ should not file charges in those cases. He communicated these recommendations in two additional memoranda addressed to Eric Holder and the Deputy Attorney General, dated March 14, 2012 and July 11, 2012. 138 F. Supp. 3d. at 468. On August 30, 2012, Holder adopted both recommendations in a second press release, which read as follows:
Statement of Attorney General Eric Holder on Closure of Investigation into the Interrogation of Certain Detainees, Dep't Just. (Aug. 30, 2012).
On April 11, 2014, the New York Times submitted an FOIA request seeking from the DOJ "any reports to the attorney general describing or presenting findings" from Mr. Durham's investigations. After DOJ declined to produce these documents, the Times filed suit in the District Court on May 28, 2014. DOJ subsequently provided an index stating that it had withheld eighteen responsive memoranda under various FOIA exemptions. The parties cross-moved for summary judgment.
The District Court granted in part and denied in part each party's motion for...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Freedom of the Press Found. v. Dep't of Justice
...law and policy," lest the exemption be allowed to "eviscerate FOIA's purpose of avoiding ‘secret law.’ " N.Y. Times Co. v. Dep't of Justice, 939 F.3d 479, 490 (2d Cir. 2019) (quoting NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 138, 153, 95 S.Ct. 1504, 44 L.Ed.2d 29 (1975) ).The plaintiffs c......
-
Reprod. Rights & Justice Project v. Dep't of HHS
...decision in which the court noted that " ‘important interests are served by FOIA's exemptions.’ " New York Times Co. v. United States Department of Justice, 939 F.3d 479, 488 (2d Cir. 2019) (quoting Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 2356, 2366, 204 L.......
-
Attorney Gen. v. Facebook, Inc.
...factual information requested about those apps will reveal confidential opinion work product. See New York Times Co. v. United States Dep't of Justice, 939 F.3d 479, 496 (2d Cir. 2019) ("We first evaluate whether ... public statements about the memoranda were specific enough to have effectu......
-
Am. Civil Liberties Union Immigrants' Rights Project v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement
...whose overriding aim is disclosure." FLRA v. U.S. Dep't of Veterans Affs. , 958 F.2d 503, 505 (2d Cir. 1992) ; see N.Y. Times Co. v. DOJ , 939 F.3d 479, 488 (2d Cir. 2019) ("FOIA ‘adopts as its most basic premise a policy strongly favoring public disclosure of information in the possession ......
-
No Work Product Privilege Among Potential Adversaries
...with ... its purpose, such as disclosing work product to its adversary ... ." Id. at 14 (quoting N.Y. Times Co. v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 939 F.3d 479, 494 (2d Cir. Application of Relevant Legal Principles to 'Pilkington' Applying the above-referenced principles, Judge Gorenstein held that ......
-
Prison Malapportionment: Forging a New Path for State Courts.
...Merrill, 939 F.3d at 473 (statewide); Davidson, 837 F.3d at 139 (citywide); Calvin, 172 F. Supp. 3d at 1295 (countywide). (74.) Merrill, 939 F.3d at 479. Merrill was not resolved on the merits, however, as both parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal in April 2020. Joint Stipulation ......