Gladys Kessler, United States District Judge.
Plaintiff Competitive Enterprise Institute ("Plaintiff" or "CEI") brings this action against the Office of Science and Technology Policy ("Defendant," "OSTP," or "the Government"), a component of the Executive Office of the President of the United States. Plaintiff alleges that the Government violated the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552, (Counts I & II), because it failed to produce emails residing in a private email account belonging to Dr. John P. Holdren, an Assistant to the President and Director of OSTP. The email account was provided to Dr. Holdren by his former employer, the Woods Hole Research Center ("Woods Hole"), a private, non-governmental organization.
This matter is presently before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment ("Mot.") [Dkt. No. 32]. Upon consideration of the Motion, Opposition ("Opp.") [Dkt. No. 33], Supplemental Authority [Dkt. No. 34], Reply ("Rep.") [Dkt. No. 35], Surreply [Dkt. No. 36-1], and the entire record herein, and for the reasons stated below, Defendant's Motion is
FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552, allows individuals to request the disclosure of records from government agencies. Id. § 552(a)(3). When an agency receives a request that "reasonably describes" the records sought, id. § 552 (a)(3)(A), it must "conduct [] a search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents."
If an agency, after exhausting administrative remedies, withholds responsive records not covered by one of FOIA's exemptions, the requester may file a lawsuit in district court to challenge the agency's decision to withhold.
The FRA is "a collection of statutes governing the creation, management, and disposal of records by federal agencies." Pub. Citizen v. Carlin, 184 F.3d 900, 902 (D. C. Cir. 1999); accord 44 U.S.C. §§ 2101-18, 2901-09, 3101-07, 3301-14. Under the FRA, agency heads are required to "make and preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency [.]" 44 U.S.C. § 3101.
Not all documents in an agency's possession qualify as "records" under the FRA. Instead, "records" includes any "recorded information" "made or received by a Federal agency under Federal law or in connection with the transaction of public business and preserved or appropriate for preservation by that agency ... as evidence of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or
Agencies may only dispose of records on terms approved by the Archivist of the United States, who is head of the National Archives and Records Administration ("NARA"). 44 U.S.C. § 3303; 36 C.F.R. § 1225.10. In order to efficiently manage the disposition process, agencies may create records schedules, which must be approved by the NARA, to govern recurring types of records. 44 U.S.C. § 3303(3); 36 C.F.R. §§ 1225.10-1225.26. Records may be deemed temporary or permanent, the former designation leading to destruction after a set period and the latter, to preservation and eventually, transfer to the NARA. 36 C.F.R. §§ 1225.14, 1225.16.
If an agency head learns of "any actual, impending, or threatened unlawful removal, defacing, alteration, corruption, deletion, erasure, or other destruction of records in the custody of the agency," he or she must notify the Archivist. 44 U.S.C. § 3106. If the agency head "knows or has reason to believe [that records] have been unlawfully removed from [his or her] agency," then the agency head "with the assistance of the Archivist shall initiate action through the Attorney General for the recovery *231 of records [.]" Id. If the agency head "does not initiate an action for such recovery or other redress within a reasonable period of time," then the Archivist "shall request the Attorney General to initiate such an action, and shall notify the Congress when such a request has been made." Id.
In November 2014, Congress Amended the FRA to address federal employee's obligations when using non-official email accounts to conduct government business. The amendment states that,
44 U.S.C. § 2911(a).
On January 21, 2009, Dr. Holdren began working at OSTP. Holdren Decl. ¶ 1 [Dkt. No. 26.1]. Previously, he worked as the Director of Woods Hole from 2005 to 2008. Id. ¶ 2. Woods Hole provided Dr. Holdren with a Woods Hole email account in approximately June 2005. Id. ¶ 4. Dr. Holdren used the Woods Hole account as a personal email account until approximately January 2014. Id. Occasionally, Dr. Holdren used this email account for OSTP work-related correspondence. Id. ¶ 7.
When Dr. Holdren received a work-related email on his Woods Hole account, OSTP policy and Federal law required him to forward the email to his official email account at OSTP or to copy his official OSTP email account on the correspondence. Id.;
In October 2013, Plaintiff submitted a FOIA request to OSTP, requesting all emails relating to OSTP on Dr. Holdren's Woods Hole email account. Compl. ¶ 3. The Government responded to CEI's FOIA request on February 4, 2014, informing CEI that "OSTP is unable to search the `jholdren@whrc.org' account for the records you have requested because that account is under the control of the Woods Hole Research Center, a private organization." OSTP's Response to FOIA Request at 1 [Dkt. No. 7-2]. On February 18, 2014, CEI responded with a letter arguing that Dr. Holdren's OSTP-related emails were subject to FOIA regardless of where they were located.
On March 7, 2014, the Government responded to CEI's February 18, 2014 letter. OSTP interpreted the February 18, 2014 letter as clarifying CEI's FOIA request to specify that it was seeking copies of all documents sent to or from the Woods Hole account, regardless of where those documents were located. In its March 7, 2014 reply, OSTP stated that it had "conducted a search of Dr. Holdren's OSTP email account and will produce responsive records to you on a rolling basis [.]" OSTP Letter of Mar. 7, 2014 at 1 [Dkt. NO. 7-4]. OSTP produced the first set of documents, consisting of 110 pages, on March 31, 2014.
On April 18, 2014, CEI responded and argued that OSTP had mis-characterized CEI's FOIA request.
On May 5, 2014, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit, which includes two FOIA claims. Compl. ¶¶ 71-81 [Dkt. No. 1].
On July 11, 2014, the Government moved to dismiss Plaintiff's FOIA claims on two grounds: (1) that OSTP was not withholding any records; and (2) that the OSTP-related Woods Hole emails were not agency records subject to FOIA. Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 7]. After full briefing, on March 3, 2015, the Court granted the Government's Motion to Dismiss based on the withholding argument, without addressing the agency records argument. March 3, 2015 Order and Mem. Op. [Dkt. Nos. 11-12]. On July 5, 2016, the Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of the FOIA claims and remanded the case.
On August 29, 2016, the Court of Appeals issued its Mandate [Dkt. No. 15] and on September 19, 2016, this Court held a Status Conference. At that Conference, CEI raised concerns about the preservation of Dr. Holdren's emails in the Woods Hole account.
At a subsequent Status Conference on October 11, 2016, the Parties informed the Court that they failed to reach an agreement on the preservation issue.
On October 17, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Preservation of Private Emails [Dkt. No. 24]. On October 31, 2016, the Government filed its Opposition to the Motion to Compel [Dkt. No. 26]. On November 10, 2016, Plaintiff filed its Reply to the Motion to Compel [Dkt. No. 29].
On December 12, 2016, this Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, and ordered "that Dr. Holdren preserve all of the emails in his Wood Hole email account, including any archived emails and any deleted email archives, on a thumb drive to be kept in his possession until such a time that this Court determines that they must be turned over to OSTP for processing or that they may be deleted." December 12, 2016 Order ("Preservation Order") [Dkt. No. 31]. The Court further ordered that the Government not conduct any searches of the Woods Hole emails at that time.
On December 27, 2016 the Government filed its Motion for Summary Judgment. On January 10, 2017, Plaintiff filed its Opposition. On January 18, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority. On January 19, 2017, the Government filed its Reply. On January 26, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File a Surreply [Dkt. No. 36] as well as its Surreply.
"FOIA cases typically and appropriately are decided on motions for summary judgment."
"To prevail on summary judgment [against a FOIA challenge], the defending `agency must show beyond material doubt [] that it has conducted a search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents.'"
Our Court of Appeals assumed without deciding that the documents sought from the Woods Hole account were agency records for the purpose of reversing this Court's finding that the documents were not improperly withheld.
However, this Court need not determine if the Woods Hole emails are agency records because the Government's arguments regarding duplicate records and its reasonable search are determinative.
The Government contends that it need not produce Dr. Holdren's OSTP-related Woods Hole emails because they are duplicates of emails that exist on OSTP servers. The Court finds this argument convincing.
The Government has established, and CEI has failed to convincingly challenge, that Dr. Holdren complied with agency policy requiring him to forward all work-related emails from his private email account to his OSTP email account. As evidence of this practice, the Government cites a number of sources.
First, OSTP's General Counsel and Chief FOIA Officer submits that it is his understanding that Dr. Holdren complied with the agency's policy of copying all OSTP related emails from his Woods Hole account to his OSTP account.
Second, Dr. Holdren submitted a declaration attesting to his compliance with OSTP policy on forwarding private server emails. Dr. Holdren attested that "[t]hrougout my time at OSTP, whenever I sent or received work-related e-mail on my WHRC e-mail address, my customary practice was to forward that e-mail to my official email account at OSTP or to copy my official OSTP email account on the correspondence." Holdren Decl. ¶ 7.
Third, the Government submits that OSTP policy requires all employees to forward work-related correspondence on non-official email accounts to their official OSTP accounts. Compl. ¶ 22. The Government rightly points out that government employees, including Dr. Holdren, are entitled to the presumption that they complied with agency policies, absent evidence to the contrary.
The presumption that Dr. Holdren complied with OSTP policy is further strengthened by evidence submitted by the Government showing that Dr. Holdren complied with the policy on approximately 4,500 occasions.
The presumption that Dr. Holdren complied with OSTP policy is rebuttable. However, "a FOIA plaintiff [must] rebut agency affidavits with something more than pure speculation," and CEI has failed to do so.
CEI argues that Dr. Holdren did not
Furthermore, Plaintiff has not pointed to any specific instance when Dr. Holdren did, or even may have, violated OSTP policy. Instead, Plaintiff argues that Dr. Holdren may not have forwarded all of his work-related Woods Hole emails to his OSTP account because he cannot be relied upon to determine what is work-related. Opp. at 21-23. However, agency employees are routinely relied upon to determine the responsive nature of their own records.
Having determined that Dr. Holdren complied with OSTP's policy of forwarding all his work-related emails from his private email account to his OSTP accounts, the Court concludes that any work-related emails in Dr. Holdren's Woods Hole account are duplicates of emails located in his OSTP account.
FOIA does not require agencies to produce duplicate records.
Therefore, the Court concludes that the Government does not need to produce Dr. Holdren's work-related Woods Hole emails as they exist in his Woods Hole account,
The Government also need not produce the Woods Hole emails because its search was "reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents."
As to Summary Judgment, an "agency must show that it made a good faith effort to conduct a search for the requested records, using methods that can be reasonably expected to produce the information requested."
Here, the Government has done so. OSTP conducted a search for OSTP-related emails sent to or from Dr. Holdren's Woods Hole email account by searching Dr. Holdren's OSTP account. Mot. at 33. After receiving CEI's FOIA request in October 2013, OSTP requested that EOP technical staff conduct a search of Dr. Holdren's OSTP email account for the search term "jholdren@whrc.org" (the Woods Hole e-mail address).
Plaintiff's challenge to the sufficiency of the Government's search is limited to its complaint that the Government did not search Dr. Holdren's Wood Hole account. However, as described above, this Court has no reason to doubt that Dr. Holdren complied with OSTP's policy of forwarding all work-related emails from his private Woods Hole email account to his OSTP account. Thus, "agency records responsive to a FOIA request would unlikely be located solely in [Dr. Holdren's] personal email account[], rendering a search of th[at] account[] unnecessary."
The Court acknowledges that in
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is
An Order shall accompany this Memorandum Opinion.