Campaign Legal Center v. United States Department of Justice ( 2020 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
)
CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 18-cv-1771 (TSC)
)
)
U.S. Department of Justice, )
)
)
Defendant. )
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Campaign Legal Center (CLC) has sued the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ),
seeking to compel responses to its February 2, 2018 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.
DOJ has moved for summary judgment (ECF No. 22, Def. MSJ), and CLC has cross-moved for
summary judgment (ECF No. 24, Pl. MSJ). For the reasons set forth below, the court will grant in
part and deny in part DOJ’s Motion for Summary Judgment and grant in part and deny in part
CLC’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. 1
I. BACKGROUND
Wilbur Ross became Secretary of the Department of Commerce on February 28, 2017.
Roughly two months later, he emailed a subordinate, Earl Comstock, stating: “I am mystified why
nothing have [sic] been done in response to my months old request that we include the citizenship
question. Why not?” (ECF No. 24-5, 5/2/17 Email at 2.) Ross was referring to his request to add a
1
Due to overlapping facts and claims between this case and another case before this court,
Campaign Legal Center v. DOJ, No. 18-cv-1187, portions of this opinion are identical to language
in the summary judgment opinion in that case.
1
question about citizenship status to the 2020 Census Questionnaire. Comstock replied the same
day: “I agree Mr. Secretary . . . We need to work with Justice to get them to request that citizenship
be added back as a census question, and we have the court cases to illustrate that DoJ has a
legitimate need for the question to be included. I will arrange a meeting with DoJ staff this week to
discuss.” (5/2/17 Email at 2.)
Secretary Ross followed up that August: “where is the DoJ in their analysis? If they still
have not come to a conclusion please let me know your contact person and I will call the AG.”
(ECF No. 24-6, Pl. Exh. 5 at 2.) A month later, on Friday September 8, 2017, Comstock sent
Secretary Ross a memo stating:
I spoke several times with James McHenry [DOJ] by phone, and after considering
the matter further James said that Justice staff did not want to raise the
question . . . James directed me to Gene Hamilton at the Department of Homeland
Security. Gene and I had several phone calls to discuss the matter, and then Gene
relayed that after discussion DHS really felt [] it was best handled by the
Department of Justice. At that point the conversation ceased and I asked James
Uthmeier [OGC at Commerce] to look into the legal issues and how Commerce
could add the question to the Census itself.
(ECF No. 24-7, Pl. Exh. 6 at 2). The record indicates that Secretary Ross contacted then-
Attorney General Jeff Sessions that same Friday, because the following Monday, Arthur Gary, the
General Counsel for DOJ’s Justice Management Division, emailed John Gore, a Deputy Assistant
Attorney General: “[Assistant Attorney General for Administration] Lee Lofthus has asked me to
reach out to you to find out if you and/or [the Civil Rights Division] have any background
information regarding some concerns raised that the Secretary of Commerce raised last week with
the AG relating to the 2020 Census. I understand the concerns relate to potential questions relating
to citizenship . . .” (ECF No. 27-2, Pl. Exh. A at 3.)
The record further suggests that Attorney General Sessions quickly agreed to request the
citizenship question. Later that week, Gore connected via email a DOJ employee and a Department
of Commerce employee to coordinate a call between Sessions and Ross. (ECF No. 24-8, Pl. Exh. 7
2
at 2.) In the correspondence preceding the call, the DOJ employee wrote: “[f]rom what John [Gore]
told me, it sounds like we can do whatever you all need us to do and the delay was due to a
miscommunication. The AG is eager to assist.” (Id.) A call between Sessions and Ross occurred
that day—September 17, 2017. (Id.) With the Attorney General on board, the drafting process
commenced, including the following steps:
• November 1, 2017: Gore emailed Chris Herren (Voting Section Chief) asking for
comments and edits on a draft letter. (ECF No. 22-6, Def. Exh. E at 76.)
• November 3, 2:05 p.m.: Herren responded: “some comments from me are included in
the attached.” (Id.)
• November 3, 5:10 p.m.: Gore emailed Gary: “the draft letter that we discussed earlier
this week is attached. Let’s touch base early next week once you’ve had a chance to
review it.” (ECF No. 22-6, Def. Exh. G at 93.)
• November 3, 5:35 p.m.: Bethany Pickett (Civil Rights Division) emailed Gore: “I’ve
attached the letter that we discussed yesterday. I would be happy to discuss this
further. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding my comments and
edits.” (Def. Exh. E at 75.)
• November 22: Gary replied to Gore with a revised draft. (Def. Exh. G at 101.)
• November 25: Gore replied, writing that he “found a few nits.” (Id.)
• November 27, 12:43 p.m.: Gore emailed Rachael Tucker and Robert Troester (both
at DOJ): “Attached please find the near-final draft of the letter to Census.” (Id. at
142.)
• November 27, 1:25 p.m.: Gore emailed Gary: “[a] couple more nits in the attached.”
(Def. Exh. E at 38.)
• November 30, 4:21 p.m.: Gore emailed Gary: “I have received some nits back from
the leadership offices, which are reflected in the attached redline and clean versions.”
(Def. Exh. G at 104.)
• December 8, 3:14 p.m.: Tucker emailed Gore: “I’m working to review this quickly.
Will be back in touch shortly.” (ECF No. 22-7 at 102.)
• December 8, 3:57 p.m.: Gore emailed Gary: “Attached is a redline of the letter . . .
With these changes, we are authorized to send.” (ECF No. 22-6, Def. Exh. E at 52.)
With the letter complete, Gary mailed and faxed it (the “Gary Letter”) to Dr. Ron Jarmin of
the U.S. Census Bureau on December 12, 2017. (Id. at 57.) In March 2018, Secretary Ross
announced Commerce’s intention to add the citizenship question, writing that “[f]ollowing receipt
3
of the DOJ request, I set out to take a hard look at the request and ensure that I considered all facts
and data relevant to the question . . .” (ECF No. 24-2, Pl. Exh. 1 at 2.)
In June of that year, Secretary Ross clarified, in a supplemental memorandum, that he had
had the idea before DOJ’s request, and that he had in fact asked DOJ to make the request: “my staff
and I consulted with Federal government components and inquired whether [DOJ] would support,
and if so would request, inclusion of a citizenship question as consistent with and useful for
enforcement of the Voting Rights Act.” (ECF No. 24-4, Pl. Exh. 3 at 2.) This supplemental
memorandum indicates that not only did Commerce ask DOJ to make the request, it further
supplied DOJ with the rationale for the request. (Id.) By the time Attorney General Sessions
agreed to make the request, all DOJ had to do was draft and send it.
A. CLC’s FOIA Request
On February 1, 2018 CLC submitted a FOIA request to three DOJ components: the Civil
Rights Division (CRT), the Justice Management Division (JMD), and the Office of the Attorney
General (OAG). (ECF No. 22-6, Exh. A (FOIA Request) at 3.) CLC asked DOJ to search for
“[a]ny documents to, from, or mentioning Dr. Ron Jarmin or Dr. Enrique Lamas” and to use eight
search terms: “2020 Census”, “long form”, “citizenship question”, “question regarding citizenship”,
“ACS”, “American Community Survey”, “citizen voting age population”, and “CVAP”. (Id.)
B. DOJ Component Responses to FOIA Request
1. CRT
CRT searched for responsive documents in the Voting Section and at the Office of the
Assistant Attorney General (OAAG). (ECF No. 22-5, Cooper Decl. ¶¶ 4–10.) Senior staff in the
Voting Section determined that all responsive records would be found in Chris Herren’s Outlook
account; Herren searched his account and located responsive documents. (Id. ¶ 6.) At the OAAG,
the Director of Operational Management determined that Gore “was the only OAAG employee who
4
had a substantive role in the preparation of the Gary Census letter.” (Id. ¶ 9.) Gore’s Outlook
account was first searched using the term “census,” and later searched for emails on which Gary and
Pickett were addressees. (Id. ¶¶ 9, 12.) On August 2, 2018, CRT conducted another search for
“handwritten notes, drafts, or other hard copy documents.” (Id. ¶ 14.)
On September 26 and November 19, 2018, CRT released sixty-nine pages in full or in part,
and withheld forty-two pages in full, pursuant to Exemption 5 and 6. (Id. ¶¶ 16, 17.) On May 8,
2018, CRT released an additional 114 pages of hard documents that were “inadvertently
overlooked” from its earlier response. (Id. ¶¶ 17, 18.)
CRT also processed a referral of sixteen pages from the Office of Information Policy (OIP),
releasing twelve pages in their entirety, withholding two in full under Exemption 5, and referring
two pages to the Office of Justice Programs (OJP), which released them to CLC. (Id. ¶¶ 19, 20.)
2. OAG/OIP
OIP is responsible for processing FOIA requests submitted to OAG. (ECF No. 22-4,
Brinkmann Decl. ¶ 1.) In response to CLC’s request, OIP used all of CLC’s suggested search terms
to search the “unclassified email records and computer hard drives” of ten records custodians. (Id.
¶¶ 14–16.) In light of the large number of potentially responsive records, CLC and OIP agreed to
exclude various categories of records from the request. (Id. ¶ 18.) On March 29, 2019, OIP
informed CLC that it had located 219 pages of responsive records. (ECF No. 22-4, Def. Exh. D at
37.) OIP also processed seventy pages referred by JMD. (Brinkmann Decl. ¶ 19.) Of those
combined 289 pages, 91 were withheld in full and 21 withheld in part pursuant to Exemption 5.
(Id.)
3. JMD
Arthur Gary, JMD’s General Counsel, conducted a “manual search of his emails for
responsive records, using the search terms listed in the request.” (ECF No. 22-3, Allen Decl. ¶ 7.)
5
Officials familiar with the matter determined that no other employee would have non-duplicative
responsive material. (Id.) JMD released 116 pages with some redactions under Exemptions 5 and 6
and withheld in full five draft letters attached to responsive emails. (Id. ¶ 9.)
II. LEGAL STANDARD
A. Summary Judgment
Summary judgment is proper where the record shows there is no genuine issue of material
fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Celotex Corp.
v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Waterhouse v. District of Columbia, 298 F.3d 989, 991 (D.C.
Cir. 2002). “A fact is ‘material’ if a dispute over it might affect the outcome of a suit under
governing law; factual disputes that are ‘irrelevant or unnecessary’ do not affect the summary
judgment determination.” Holcomb v. Powell, 433 F.3d 889, 895 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (quoting
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). “An issue is ‘genuine’ if ‘the evidence is
such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.’” Holcomb, 433 F.3d at
895. Courts must view “the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant[ ] and draw[ ]
all reasonable inferences accordingly,” and determine whether a “reasonable jury could reach a
verdict” in the non-movant’s favor. Lopez v. Council on Am.–Islamic Relations Action Network,
Inc., 826 F.3d 492, 496 (D.C. Cir. 2016).
B. FOIA
FOIA cases are typically decided on motions for summary judgment. Brayton v. Office of
the U.S. Trade Rep., 641 F.3d 521, 527 (D.C. Cir. 2011). “FOIA provides a ‘statutory right of
public access to documents and records’ held by federal government agencies.” Citizens for
Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. (CREW) v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 602 F. Supp. 2d 121, 123
(D.D.C. 2009) (quoting Pratt v. Webster, 673 F.2d 408, 413 (D.C. Cir. 1982)). Federal agencies
must comply with requests and make their records available to the public unless such “information
6
is exempted under [one of nine] clearly delineated statutory [exemptions].” CREW, 602 F. Supp. 2d
at 123; see also 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(a)–(b). Summary judgment for the agency is only appropriate
when an agency proves that it has fully discharged its FOIA obligations. Moore v. Aspin, 916 F.
Supp. 32, 35 (D.D.C. 1996).
In cases challenging the applicability of certain FOIA exemptions, the district court conducts
a de novo review of the agency’s decision to withhold requested documents under any
of FOIA’s specific exemptions. See id; 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B). The burden is on the agency to
show that nondisclosed, requested material falls within a stated exemption. See Petroleum Info.
Corp. v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 976 F.2d 1429, 1433 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (citing 5 U.S.C.
§ 552(a)(4)(B)). Agencies may rely on supporting declarations that are reasonably detailed and
non-conclusory. See King v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 830 F.2d 210, 218 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (“affidavits
cannot support summary judgment if they are conclusory, merely reciting statutory standards, or if
they are too vague or sweeping.”). The declarations must provide enough information “to afford the
FOIA requester a meaningful opportunity to contest, and the district court an adequate foundation to
review, the soundness of the withholding.” Id. at 218. “If an agency’s affidavit describes the
justifications for withholding the information with specific detail, demonstrates that the information
withheld logically falls within the claimed exemption, and is not contradicted by contrary evidence
in the record or by evidence of the agency’s bad faith, then summary judgment is warranted on the
basis of the affidavit alone.” ACLU v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., 628 F.3d 612, 619 (D.C. Cir. 2011)
(citations omitted). A motion for summary judgment should be granted in favor of the FOIA
requester, however, where “an agency seeks to protect material which, even on the agency’s version
of the facts, falls outside the proffered exemption.” Coldiron v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 310 F. Supp.
2d 44, 48 (D.D.C. 2004) (quoting Petroleum Info. Corp., 976 F.2d at 1433).
7
In cases where the adequacy of a search is at issue, the agency “must show beyond material
doubt [] that it has conducted a search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents.”
Weisberg v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 705 F.2d 1344, 1351 (D.C. Cir. 1983). The court employs a
reasonableness test to determine whether an agency’s search for responsive materials is adequate.
Rodriguez v. Dep’t of Def., 236 F. Supp. 3d 26, 34 (D.D.C. 2017) (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dep’t of
Justice, 164 F.3d 20, 27 (D.C. Cir. 1998)). “[T]he adequacy of a FOIA search is generally
determined not by the fruits of the search, but by the appropriateness of the methods used to carry
out the search.” Iturralde v. Comptroller of the Currency, 315 F.3d 311, 315 (D.C. Cir. 2003).
However, “evidence that relevant records have not been released may shed light on whether the
agency’s search was indeed adequate.” Weisberg, 705 F.2d at 1351. The court must accord agency
affidavits “a presumption of good faith, which cannot be rebutted by purely speculative claims
about the existence and discoverability of other documents.” Safecard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d
1197, 1200 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “It is well-established”
however “that a conclusory affidavit that gives ‘no detail as to the scope of the examination . . . is
insufficient as a matter of law’ in demonstrating the adequacy of the search.” Am.-Arab Anti-
Discrimination Comm. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 516 F. Supp. 2d 83, 87 (D.D.C. 2007)
(quoting Weisberg v. U.S. DOJ, 627 F.2d 365, 370 (D.C. Cir. 1980)).
III. ANALYSIS
Although “a motion for summary judgment cannot be ‘conceded’ for want of opposition,”
Winston & Strawn, LLP v. McLean, 843 F.3d 503, 505 (D.C. Cir. 2016), “[t]his does not mean . . .
that the Court must assess the legal sufficiency of each and every [claim] invoked by the
government in a FOIA case.” Shapiro v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 239 F. Supp. 3d 100, 106 n.1
(D.D.C. 2017). Instead,
8
[w]here the FOIA requester responds to the government’s motion for summary
judgment without taking issue with the government’s decision to withhold or to redact
specific documents, the Court can reasonably infer that the FOIA requester does not
seek those specific records or information and that, as to those records or information,
there is no case or controversy sufficient to sustain the Court’s jurisdiction.
Id; see Lujan v. Def. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). Accordingly, the court will address only
CLC’s arguments in response to DOJ’s motion for summary judgment.
A. CRT
CLC alleges that CRT (1) conducted an inadequate search, and (2) improperly withheld
responsive records. (Pl. MSJ at 12–21, 27; ECF No. 27, Pl. Reply at 5–12, 14.)
1. CRT’s search was inadequate
Under FOIA, an adequate search is one that is “reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant
documents.” Weisberg, 705 F.2d at 1351; see Oglesby v. Dep’t of the Army, 920 F.2d 57, 68 (D.C.
Cir. 1990) (“[T]he agency must show that it made a good faith effort to conduct a search for the
requested records, using methods which can be reasonably expected to produce the information
requested.”).
CLC requested “all records pertaining” to the Gary letter, and as noted above, it
recommended eight search terms. (Cooper Decl. ¶ 2.) The details of CRT’s search are described
more fully above, (see supra Part I(A),(B)), but it is sufficient here to reiterate that CRT’s digital
searches used only the search term “census” instead of any of the eight recommended by CLC.
(Cooper Decl. ¶¶ 6–10.) CRT claims that two of the eight recommended terms are too general, but
does not address the other six. (Id. ¶ 15.)
This court is mindful that an agency has discretion in how it conducts a FOIA search, and
that “[i]n general, a FOIA petitioner cannot dictate the search terms for his or her FOIA request.”
Bigwood v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., 132 F. Supp. 3d 124, 140 (D.D.C. 2015). But an agency’s discretion
“is not boundless; the search terms selected must pass muster under a standard of reasonableness.”
9
Coffey v. Bureau of Land Management, 249 F. Supp. 3d 488, 498 (D.D.C. 2017) (internal quotes
omitted). DOJ’s use of a single search term for all the digital records does not pass muster under
that standard. It is likely that responsive digital documents exist which do not have the word
“census” in them. Thus, because only one search term was used, and that term was inadequate, the
search was not “reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents.” Weisberg, 705 F.2d at
1351. As to this issue, the court will grant summary judgment for CLC.
2. CRT improperly withheld records under the presidential communications privilege
CRT withheld twenty-three pages of email correspondence between DOJ attorneys and
White House staff under the presidential communications privilege, and thus under Exemption 5. 2
(ECF. No. 22-8, CRT Vaughn Index, Group 7; 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5). The correspondence deals
with notifying Congress of DOJ’s request for a census citizenship question. (CRT Vaughn Index,
Group 7.) Exemption 5 shields documents that would “normally [be] privileged from discovery in
civil litigation against the agency,” including documents protected by the presidential
communications privilege. Tax Analysts v. IRS, 117 F.3d 607, 616 (D.C. Cir. 1997). To withhold a
document under Exemption 5, the “document must meet two conditions: its source must be a
Government agency, and it must fall within the ambit of a privilege against discovery under judicial
standards that would govern litigation against the agency that holds it.” Stolt-Nielsen Transp. Grp.
Ltd. v. U.S., 534 F.3d 728, 733 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
There is no dispute that the first condition is met here; the parties’ dispute is directed to the second
condition.
The presidential communications privilege (and thus Exemption 5) protects
“communications directly involving and documents actually viewed by the President, as well as
2
OIP also withheld this set of emails under the deliberative process privilege, which is addressed
below. (See infra Part III(A)(3).)
10
documents solicited and received by the President or his immediate White House advisers [with] . . .
broad and significant responsibility for investigating and formulating the advice to be given the
President.” Loving v. Dep’t of Def., 550 F.3d 32, 37 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (internal quotations omitted)
(alterations in original).
DOJ has not asserted sufficient facts to show that the documents at issue were protected by
the privilege. (See Def. MSJ; ECF No. 26, Def. Reply; Cooper Decl.; CRT Vaughn Index; ECF No.
26-2, 2d Cooper Decl.) DOJ does not assert, for example, that the President was involved in the
communications or that the President viewed any of the documents related to the communications,
or that the communications related to advice to be given to the President. (Id.)
Absent these assertions, the privilege does not apply. “The presidential communications
privilege should never serve as a means of shielding information regarding governmental operations
that do not call ultimately for direct decisionmaking by the President.” In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d
729, 752 (D.C. Cir. 1997). DOJ does describe the communications as a “subject of potential
presidential decisionmaking” (Def. Reply at 19), but does not state that the President actually did
make the decision or that the communications were “made by presidential advisers in the course of
preparing advice for the President.” Judicial Watch, Inc. v. United States Dep’t of Def., 913 F.3d
1106, 1111 (D.C. Cir. 2019). Accordingly, the presidential communications privilege does not
apply, and summary judgment will be granted for CLC as to the withholding of this material under
this privilege.
3. CRT’s withholdings under the deliberative process privilege
CLC contests all of CRT’s withholdings pursuant to the deliberative process privilege under
Exemption 5. 3 (Pl. MSJ at 12, 16.) The deliberative process privilege protects materials that are
3
DOJ argues that this court should grant summary judgment in favor of DOJ as to some of the
documents because CLC does not address each document individually. (Def. Reply at 5.) Though
11
“predecisional” and “deliberative.” Mapother v. Dep’t of Justice, 3 F.3d 1533, 1537 (D.C. Cir.
1993). The court will address the withholdings under this privilege in five groups: (i) the drafts and
email correspondence related to the Gary Letter, (ii) the 2016 memoranda from CRT to JMD, (iii)
the email thread between DOJ and the White House, and (iv) the memorandum from Uthmeier to
Gore.
i. Drafts and email correspondence related to the Gary Letter
Under the deliberative process privilege, CRT withheld drafts of the Gary Letter as well as
portions of emails discussing the drafts. (CRT Vaughn Index, Group 1, 3, 4, 8.) The critical issue is
whether the documents are “predecisional.” Mapother, 3 F.3d at 1537. Documents are
predecisional if they were “prepared in order to assist an agency decisionmaker in arriving at his
decision, rather than to support a decision already made.” Petroleum Info. Corp., 976 F.2d at 1434
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
CLC argues that none of the documents are predecisional because they were created after
Commerce decided to add the citizenship question to the Census and after DOJ decided to issue the
letter requesting that question. (Pl. MSJ at 14–17.) Defendant does not dispute this timeline, but
argues that the documents are predecisional because they were created before the letter was
finalized. (Def. MSJ at 10–11.) The parties thus agree on the sequence of events, but disagree
about what constitutes the relevant agency decision: the decision to write the letter, or the decision
about the letter’s final contents.
The inquiry can be circular. Indeed, every draft postdates the decision to write it, and
simultaneously predates the decision of what to include in it. Such is the case here: the drafting
it is true that CLC’s arguments are tailored to certain document categories, that does not undermine
the fact that CLC explicitly contests all the withholdings. (Pl. MSJ at 12.) (“DOJ has not met its
burden with respect to materials it claims are protected by the deliberative process privilege because
it has not shown that the withheld materials are predecisional and deliberative in nature.”).
12
process postdated Attorney General Session’s decision to issue the letter, but undeniably predated
the decision about the final contents of the letter. In this regard, Plaintiff and Defendant are both
right: the disputed materials are predecisional, but they are also postdecisional. The ultimate
question is what constitutes the relevant decision for Exemption 5.
As Wright & Miller have observed, “[d]efining ‘decision’ for purposes of the privilege is no
easy task.” 26A Charles Alan Wright et al., Fed. Practice & Procedure § 5680 (1st ed. 1992).
Though there is no well-established test for identifying the relevant decision, cases in this Circuit do
provide some guidance. First, they suggest that the relevant decision in any given case is one that
involves discretion about what an agency position or agency policy should be. 4 The D.C. Circuit
has held, for example, that documents did not fall under Exemption 5 because they “were not
suggestions or recommendations as to what agency policy should be.” Coastal States Gas Corp. v.
Dep’t of Energy, 617 F.2d 854, 868 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (emphasis added). The Court later elaborated
on this principle:
To fall within the deliberative process privilege, materials must bear on the
formulation or exercise of agency policy-oriented judgment . . . [W]hen material
could not reasonably be said to reveal an agency’s or official’s mode of formulating
or exercising policy-implicating judgment, the deliberative process privilege is
inapplicable.
Petroleum Info. Corp., 976 F.2d at 1435 (D.C. Cir. 1992).
Consistent with this language, this Circuit has held that drafts showing the exercise of
“agency policy-oriented judgment” are in fact predecisional. See Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v.
Norton, 309 F.3d 26, 39 (D.C. Cir. 2002). In Dudman Commc’ns Corp. v. Dep’t of Air Force, 815
4
This does not mean that a relevant agency decision must involve a formal policy. See Gold Anti-
Trust Action Comm., Inc. v. Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Reserve Sys., 762 F. Supp. 2d 123, 135-36
(D.D.C. 2011) (“even if an internal discussion does not lead to the adoption of a specific
government policy, its protection under Exemption 5 is not foreclosed as long as the document was
generated as part of a definable decision-making process.”) (citing Petroleum Info. Corp. v. U.S.
Dep’t of the Interior, 976 F.2d 1429, 1434 (D.C. Cir. 1992).
13
F.2d 1565, 1565 (D.C. Cir. 1987), the D.C. Circuit withheld a preliminary draft of a historical work
published by the Air Force about operations in South Vietnam between 1961 and 1964. The
drafting process involved decisions about the agency’s historical conclusions and representations to
the public. Id. at 1566. In Radiation Sterilizers, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, No. 90-880, 1991
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4669 (D.D.C. Apr. 9, 1991), the Court withheld documents from a drafting
process that determined what data and conclusions should be included in an interim report to
Congress about a chemical leak. Likewise, in Brown v. Dept. of State, 317 F. Supp. 3d 370, 370
(D.D.C. 2018), the court withheld documents produced in preparation for court filings and for a
letter to Congress.
The facts of this case are significantly different. The letter at issue did not involve discretion
about an agency position or about the primary reasons for the agency position. The agency’s
position and the reasons for the letter had already been decided. Thus, the drafting did not
demonstrate “the process by which policy is formulated,” nor could it “reasonably be said to reveal
an agency’s or official’s mode of formulating or exercising policy-implicating judgment.”
Petroleum Info. Corp., 976 F.2d at 1434 (D.C. Cir. 1992).
Moreover, Gary and Gore were not drafting the document so that a supervisor or colleague
could decide a particular issue. In Coastal States, the D.C. Circuit held that “a document from a
subordinate to a superior official is more likely to be predecisional.” 617 F.2d at 868. This is
because such documents generally aid in the decisionmaking process about an agency’s position.
Thus, in Access Reports v. Dep’t of Justice, the D.C. Circuit upheld withholding a document that a
low-level employee created for supervisors who had asked for research on a particular issue. 926
F.2d 1192, 1196-97 (D.C. Cir. 1991). Such documents are quintessentially predecisional—they are
created to help the agency make a decision. See Krikorian v. Dept. of State, 984 F.2d 461, 466
(D.C. Cir. 1993) (withholding a document from subordinates to supervisors that proposed two
14
options for how to respond to public inquiries about a recent agency decision regarding a genocide);
United Am. Fin., Inc. v. Potter, 531 F. Supp. 2d 29, 44 (D.D.C. 2008) (withholding investigative
notes that were provided to an office to assist it in writing a report to employees about identity theft
against the agency); Blank Rome LLP v. Dep’t of the Air Force, No. 15-cv-1200 (RCL), 2016 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 128209, at *14, *35 (D.D.C. Sept. 20, 2016) (withholding draft documents that
assisted the Air Force in coming to a decision regarding a settlement proposal).
Here, the contested documents do not fit that mold. They were not used to help the agency
make a decision, but rather were used to communicate the decision. 5 If the materials in question
were drafts of documents that Gore and Gary prepared for Attorney General Sessions before he
decided to request the citizenship question, they would be squarely predecisional. But that was not
their purpose. While Gore did email the draft to supervisors before it was sent to the Census
Bureau, it is telling that in the email he wrote that he was sending them a “near-final” draft. (Def.
Exh. G at 142.) In other words, the draft was not provided to supervisors to help them make a
decision. The decision had already been made, and the supervisors were reviewing Gore’s
implementation of it. (See id.)
The court is mindful of the D.C. Circuit’s directive that Exemption 5 should be construed
narrowly. “In light of the FOIA’s strong policy in favor of disclosure . . . Exemption 5 is to be
construed as narrowly as consistent with efficient Government operation.” Petroleum Info. Corp.,
5
Decisions about how to message agency policy to the public can be predecisional. See Hooker v.
HHS, 887 F. Supp. 2d. 40, 40 (D.D.C. 2012) (withholding drafts of a publication about vaccine
safety); Hunton & Williams LLP v. U.S. EPA, Civ. A. No. 15-1203, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166174
at *9 (D.D.C. Sept. 27, 2018) (withholding drafts of letters to non-profits and emails discussing
communications strategy); Sierra Club v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 384 F. Supp. 2d 1, 20 (D.D.C.
2004) (withholding documents related to the agency’s response to a congressional inquiry.) In fact,
a court recently held that the contested documents in this case constituted “messaging.” See New
York v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, Civ. A. No. 18-2921, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1772468 at *20
(S.D.N.Y. Oct. 5, 2018). These cases are inapplicable here because DOJ concedes that the withheld
materials are not messaging documents. (Def. Reply at 13 n.8.)
15
976 F.2d at 1434 (internal quotations omitted); see also Wolfe v. Dep’t of Health and Human Servs.,
839 F.2d 768, 773 (D.C. Cir 1988). Consequently, the court finds that the relevant decision for
purposes of Exemption 5 is the one made by Attorney General Sessions to request the citizenship
question, not the decision about the final contents of the letter. The emails sent and the drafts
written after that decision are thus not predecisional and cannot be withheld under Exemption 5.
Because the documents are not predecisional, the court need not decide whether they are
deliberative, and will grant summary judgment for CLC as to the Exemption 5 withholdings of
these documents (CRT Vaughn Index, Groups 1, 3, 4, 8).
ii. 2016 memoranda sent from CRT to JMD
CRT withheld two memoranda it sent to the Justice Management Division in 2016, citing
the deliberative process privilege. (CRT Vaughn Index, Group 5.) The memoranda contain
recommendations for new census questions. (Id.) Though CLC generally contests all withholdings
under the deliberative process privilege, it advances no specific arguments as to why the privilege
does not cover these memoranda. The court agrees with DOJ that “these two memoranda are
predecisional because they were drafted before JMD made any decisions concerning whether to
suggest new questions to the U.S. Census Bureau.” (Cooper Decl. ¶ 27; Def. MSJ at 11.) Further,
the documents are deliberative because they are “a part of the agency give-and-take of the
deliberative process by which the decision itself is made.” Vaughn v. Rosen, 523 F.3d 1136, 1144
(D.C. Cir. 1975). Because the material is predecisional and deliberative, the deliberative process
16
privilege applies, and the court will grant summary judgment for DOJ as to these documents (CRT
Vaughn Index, Group 5).
iii. DOJ-White House email thread
In addition to withholding these documents under the presidential communications privilege
(which the court has found to be inapplicable), CRT also invokes the deliberative process privilege. 6
At this point, however, the court is unable to rule on whether the deliberative process privilege
applies because DOJ does not specify what portions of the records are covered by it. While the
Vaughn Index states that the documents are “withheld in full pursuant to Exemption 5 (DPP),”
DOJ’s Reply brief asserts the documents are only “partially protected by the deliberative process
privilege.” (CRT Vaughn Index, Group 7; Def. Reply at 20.) Further, in discussing this material,
the OIP Declaration acknowledges that DOJ has apparently not decided what portions may be
protected. (Brinkmann Decl., ¶ 28) (describing the documents as “partially or fully protected by the
deliberative process privilege.”).
Because the court has determined that the presidential process privilege is inapplicable, DOJ
must decide what portions of the responsive documents are covered by the deliberative process
privilege. Once it does, DOJ has a duty to segregate and produce any portions not covered by
Exemption 5. 5 U.S.C. § 522(b) (“Any reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be provided
to any person requesting such record after deletion of the portions which are exempt under this
subsection.”). Accordingly, the court will deny summary judgment for both DOJ and CLC as to the
6
The documents consist of twenty-three pages of email correspondence between DOJ attorneys and
White House staff related to Congressional notification about the citizenship question. (CRT
Vaughn Index, Group 7).
17
applicability of the deliberative process privilege to these records and order DOJ to make that
determination.
iv. Memorandum from Uthmeier to Gore
Citing the deliberative process, the attorney work product, and the attorney client privileges,
CRT withheld a handwritten cover note and memorandum from “Janes [sic] Uthmeier” to John
Gore. (CRT Vaughn Index, Group 6; Cooper Decl. ¶ 28.) Both documents are undated, but CRT
asserts that Gore received them in 2017. (2d Cooper Decl. ¶ 3(c).) While CLC challenges all
withholdings under the deliberative process privilege, CLC does not challenge withholding this
material under the attorney work product privilege or the attorney client privilege. (Pl. MSJ at 14,
21–23.) Therefore, the material is exempt from disclosure and the court need not consider whether
the deliberative process privilege also applies. Summary judgment will be granted for DOJ as to
this material.
B. OIP
CLC argues that OIP improperly withheld material under the (1) presidential
communications privilege, (2) attorney work product privilege, and (3) deliberative process
privilege. (Pl. MSJ at 12–13, 20–23.)
1. Presidential communications privilege
Like CRT, OIP invokes the presidential communications privilege for email exchanges
between DOJ and the White House. (See Def. Reply at 20 n.11.) The court determined that, for
CRT, the privilege does not apply, and its reasoning applies to OIP as well. (See infra Part
III(B)(3)(ii).) DOJ does not claim that the President was or would be involved in the subject of
communication. See Loving, 550 F.3d at 37. While the OIP declaration is more thorough than
CRT’s (for example, it contends that the subject of communication is one of “presidential concern
and decision”), it still falls short of asserting that the President was actually involved or would be
18
involved in this decision in any capacity. (Brinkmann Decl. ¶ 28.) The court therefore holds that
the presidential communications privilege does not shield these documents. 7
2. Attorney work product privilege
Citing the attorney work product privilege, OIP withheld 24 pages of draft responses to
interrogatories from the United States Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR). (ECF No. 22-4, Def.
Exh. F, OIP Vaughn Index, at 45.) The attorney work product privilege, under Exemption 5,
protects material that can “fairly be said to have been prepared or obtained because of the prospect
of litigation.” In re Sealed Case, 146 F.3d 881, 884 (D.C. Cir. 1998). The D.C. Circuit has “long
required a case-specific determination” for whether the privilege applies. Nat’l Ass’n of Criminal
Def. Lawyers v. Dep’t of Justice Exec. Office for U.S. Attorneys, 844 F.3d 246, 251 (D.C. Cir.
2016). That determination requires a “because-of” test: whether, “in light of the nature of the
document and the factual situation in the particular case,” the document was prepared or obtained
“because of the prospect of litigation.” United States v. Deloitte LLP, 610 F.3d 129, 137 (D.C. Cir.
2010) (internal quotations omitted.).
DOJ does not contend that the Commission’s request itself constitutes litigation, but rather
that the request put OIP in reasonable anticipation of future litigation. (Def. Reply at 17–19; Def.
MSJ at 12–13; Brinkmann Declaration ¶ 35.) According to DOJ, “given that citizen complaints
alleging discrimination often prompt Commission investigations, it is reasonable for a party
receiving interrogatories from the Commission to anticipate that . . . the matter in question might
lead to litigation . . .” (Def. Reply at 18.)
7
The court will address below whether the deliberative process privilege also applies to this
material. (See infra Part III(B)(3)(ii).)
19
Even if this is true, however, it does not follow that the interrogatory responses were created
“because of” litigation. See Deloitte LLP, 610 F.3d at 137. Absent an assertion to the contrary, it
appears that OIP would have responded to the interrogatories regardless of whether it thought
litigation would ensue. (See Def. Reply.) The court agrees with CLC that the draft responses were
created “not because of the prospect of litigation, but to provide information” to Congress. (Pl.
Reply at 11.) Because they were not prepared “because of” litigation, the attorney work product
privilege (and thus Exemption 5) does not apply to them. 8
3. Deliberative Process Privilege
CLC contests all OIP withholdings under the deliberative process privilege. (Pl. MSJ at 12.)
The withholdings will be addressed in the following groups: (i) Gary Letter drafts and emails, (ii)
DOJ-White House Correspondence, (iii) draft USCCR Interrogatories, (iv) press inquiries, and (iv)
remaining withholdings that lack sufficient explanation.
i. Gary Letter drafts and emails
For the reasons stated above regarding CRT’s withholding of the Gary Letter draft
documents, the deliberative privilege is also inapplicable to OIP’s withholding of those documents.
(See infra Part III(B)(3)(v).) Accordingly, the court will grant summary judgment for CLC and
order DOJ to release the documents identified in the OIP Vaughn index with Bates numbers OIP
107-109; OIP-116–119; OIP-122–124, and OIP-127.
ii. DOJ-White House Correspondence
OIP claims the presidential communications privilege and the deliberative process privilege
covers this material. (Def. Exh. F, OIP Vaughn Index, at 46; Brinkmann Decl. ¶ 28, 29; ECF No.
8
DOJ’s argument that these documents are also exempt from disclosure under the deliberative
process privilege will be addressed below. (See supra Part III(B)(3)(i)–(iv).)
20
26-1, 2d Brinkmann Decl., ¶ 9-15.) As already discussed, however, DOJ does not specify which
portions of the material are actually protected by the deliberative process privilege. (See supra Part
III(A)(3)(ii).) Accordingly, the court will deny summary judgment for both CLC and DOJ and
direct DOJ to indicate what material the privilege protects and to release the remainder to CLC.
iii. Draft USCCR Interrogatories
Having determined that the attorney work product privilege does not apply to the draft
interrogatory responses, the court now addresses DOJ’s assertion that the documents are also
“protected in their entireties” by the deliberative process privilege. (Brinkmann Decl. at 16 n.8; ¶
26; Def. Reply at 10.) OIP contends that they are deliberative because they reflect “deliberations
regarding the content of documents” and they are pre-decisional because they “precede the creation
and/or transmission of final Department documents . . .” (Brinkmann Decl. ¶27.) CLC argues that
DOJ has not shown that the privilege applies because there is “no policy decision to which these
draft responses apply and therefore no applicable privilege.” (Pl. Reply at 11 n.9.)
The court does not have enough information to determine whether the privilege applies. It is
undisputed that the drafts were created before being sent to the Commission, and that they reflect
deliberations about the contents of the documents. (See Def. Exh. G. at 18–76.) But DOJ has not
disclosed what types of decisions were involved in drafting the interrogatory responses. As a result,
the Court has no way of knowing whether the contents of these documents reflect “the formulation
or exercise of . . . policy-oriented judgment.” Prop. of the People, Inc. v. Office of Mgmt. and
Budget, 330 F. Supp. 3d 373, 382 (D.D.C. 2018) (quoting Petroleum Info. Corp., 976 F.2d at 1435).
“Where an agency fails to meets its burden, FOIA provides courts ‘a host of procedures’ to
determine whether the exemption claim is proper, including discovery, further agency affidavits,
and in camera review of the records in question.” Bloche v. Dep’t of Def., 370 F. Supp. 3d 40, 55
(D.D.C. 2019) (quoting Allen v. CIA, 636 F.2d 1287, 1298 (D.C. Cir. 1980)). Here, the court will
21
direct DOJ to provide further declarations, and will deny both parties’ motions for summary
judgment on this issue.
iv. Press inquiries
Citing the deliberative process privilege, OIP withheld three pages of “internal emails
among DOJ staff containing deliberations about how to respond to press inquiries.” (Brinkmann
Decl. ¶ 30; Def. Exh. 5, OIP Vaughn Index, documents identified as JMD 63, 67–68.) DOJ relies
on Competitive Enter. Inst. v. EPA, 232 F. Supp. 3d 172, 187-88 (D.D.C. 2017), which held that
“[e]mails ‘generated as part of a continuous process of agency decision-making regarding how to
respond to’ a press inquiry are protected by the deliberative process privilege.” Id. (quoting
Judicial Watch v. Dep’t of Transport., 796 F. Supp. 2d 13, 31 (D.D.C. 2011).). CLC, while
generally contesting all deliberative process privilege withholdings, does not advance any specific
arguments regarding these documents.
The D.C. Circuit has not addressed whether the deliberative process privilege applies to
responses to press inquiries, but numerous trial courts in this District have held that it does. See,
e.g., Gellman v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 16CV635, 2020 WL 1323896, at *12 (D.D.C. Mar.
20, 2020) (“the overwhelming consensus among courts in this District is that discussions about how
to respond to the press are protected by this privilege.”) (internal quotations omitted); American
Center for Law & Justice v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 330 F. Supp. 3d 293, 302 (D.D.C. 2018) (“the
deliberative process privilege applies to documents generated in the crafting of an agency’s public
statements”); Comm. on Oversight & Gov’t Reform v. Lynch, 156 F. Supp. 3d 101, 111-12 (D.D.C.
2016) (privilege covers deliberations about how to respond to press inquiries regarding a law
enforcement initiative).
This court finds the reasoning of other courts in this District on this issue to be persuasive.
The documents are pre-decisional because they were created before the agency responded to a press
22
inquiry, and they are deliberative because they are “a part of the agency give-and-take of the
deliberative process by which the decision itself is made.” Vaughn, 523 F.3d at 1144. Accordingly,
the deliberative process privilege applies and the court will grant summary judgment for DOJ as to
these documents. (Def. Exh. D, OIP Vaughn Index, documents identified as JMD 63, 67–68.)
v. Withholdings lacking sufficient explanation.
“Affidavits submitted by a governmental agency in justification for its exemption claims
must . . . enable ‘the District Court to make a rational decision whether the withheld material must
be produced . . .’” King v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 830 F.2d 210, 218 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (quoting
Dellums v. Powell, 642 F.2d 1351, 1360 (D.C. Cir. 1980). “[T]he need for a detailed description ‘is
of particular importance . . . where the agency is claiming that the documents are protected by the
deliberative process privilege under Exemption 5.’” People for the Am. Way Found. v. Nat’l Park
Serv., 503 F. Supp. 2d 284, 295 (D.D.C. 2007) (quoting Edmonds Inst. v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 383
F. Supp. 2d 105, 108 n.1 (D.D.C. 2005). “To accept an inadequately supported exemption claim
‘would constitute an abandonment of the trial court’s obligation under the FOIA to conduct a de
novo review.’” King, 830 F.2d at 219 (quoting Allen, 636 F.2d at 1293).
The court finds that OIP has not provided enough information for the court to determine
whether the privilege applies to several of the documents or portions thereof. The first is described
in the Vaughn Index as “Draft Correspondence between JMD and Department of Commerce.”
(Def. Exh. F, OIP Vaughn Index, final version released under “JMD-5.”) The Brinkmann
Declaration states only that the documents “consist of draft versions of Department correspondence
with Congress or other federal agencies.” (Brinkmann Decl. ¶ 26.) A second document is
described in the Vaughn index as “Draft Correspondence with Representative Gonzalez.” (Def.
Exh. F, OIP Vaughn Index, final version released under “OIP 2-3.”) Here too, the only additional
23
information is that it “consist[s] of draft versions of Department correspondence with Congress or
other federal agencies.” (Brinkmann Decl. ¶ 26.)
Two more documents withheld in part are described in the Vaughn Index as “Deliberative
Discussions Regarding Inter-agency Correspondence.” (Def. Exh. F, OIP Vaughn Index, OIP 105,
113.) One is dated December 19, 2017, and the other December 12, 2017 (the day the Gary Letter
was sent to Commerce). (ECF No. 22-2, Def. SOF, ¶ 46.) The Brinkmann Declaration asserts
generally that these documents “consist of internal emails among DOJ staff providing advice and
recommendations regarding a particular piece of correspondence with another agency.”
(Brinkmann Decl. ¶ 30.) Another document is described as “Deliberative Discussions Regarding
Congressional Correspondence.” (Def. Exh. F., OIP Vaughn Index, JMD 23.) The Brinkmann
Declaration explains that this document “consist[s] of internal discussions among DOJ staff
regarding an inquiry from Congress.” (Brinkmann Decl. ¶ 30.)
OIP also withheld three pages described as “deliberative discussions regarding the drafting
process” but does not describe what is being drafted. (Def. Exh. F, OIP Vaughn Index, JMD 39,
OIP 101–103.) The Vaughn Index does include the subject line of these emails (“RE: Letter in
Response to Census Bureau Letter Re: Citizenship on 2020 census” and “Re: APPROVAL:
Statement in Response to Citizenship Question on Census”), but that is not enough for the court to
understand the nature of the letters or statements being drafted. (Id.) OIP also withheld three pages
in part described as “Deliberative Discussions Regarding the Census and/or ACS.” (Def. Exh. F,
OIP Vaughn Index, JMD 2–3, 7.) The Brinkmann Declaration adds that these pages “consist of
internal emails among DOJ staff reflecting advice, preliminary research, and opinions, and analysis
regarding the census or American Community Survey.” (Brinkmann Decl. ¶ 30.) They are dated
March 6 and 7, 2017. (Def. Exh. F, OIP Vaughn Index, JMD 2–3, 7.) There is no information
provided as to whether the “research” is general, or if this communication is aimed at a decision,
24
such as whether census questions should be added, as was the case in CRT’s withheld memoranda
about the census. (See supra Part III(B)(3)(v).)
The court lacks the information necessary to determine whether the privilege applies to any
of these documents. It is not enough to say that something is a draft or to say that it was
deliberative; more information is needed. Judicial Watch. Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, 297 F. Supp.
2d 252, 261 (D.D.C. 2004) (“[D]rafts are not presumptively privileged.”) Summary judgment will
thus be denied as to these documents for both DOJ and CLC.
C. JMD
CLC alleges that JMD conducted an inadequate search and improperly withheld responsive
records. (Pl. MSJ at 25, 26.)
1. JMD’s search was adequate
Under FOIA, an adequate search is “reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant
documents.” Weisberg, 705 F.2d at 1351; see Oglesby, 920 F.2d at 68 (“[T]he agency must show
that it made a good faith effort to conduct a search for the requested records, using methods which
can be reasonably expected to produce the information requested.”). As noted above, JMD’s
General Counsel, Arthur Gary, conducted a “manual search of his emails for responsive records,
using the search terms listed in the request.” (Allen Decl. ¶ 7.) Officials familiar with the matter
determined that no other employee would have non-duplicative responsive material. (Id.)
CLC argues that JMD should have also searched for paper and electronic records, such as
word documents saved to Gary’s computer. (Pl. MSJ at 26.) It also contends that Gary’s manual
search of his own documents is unreliable. (Pl. Reply at 13.) DOJ rests on its supporting
declaration, stating that “it was determined that no other custodians would have responsive material
that would not already be captured by the search of Mr. Gary’s email.” (Allen Decl. ¶ 7.)
25
JMD’s search may have been limited in scope, but there is no evidence to suggest that it was
inadequate. Individuals with knowledge of the process determined where the records would be
found, and JMD used all CLC’s requested search terms to search that source. The court concludes
that JMD “made a good faith effort to conduct a search for the requested records, using methods
which can be reasonably expected to produce the information requested.” Oglesby, 920 F.2d at 68.
As to this issue, summary judgment will be granted for DOJ.
2. JMD’s withholdings under the Deliberative Process Privilege
Invoking the deliberative process privilege, JMD withheld in full or in part: (i) fourteen
pages of draft versions of the Gary Letter, (ii) one page of an unspecified “draft response,” and (iii)
one page of an email from Barry Robinson to Arthur Gary. (Allen Decl. at 9.)
i. Drafts of the Gary Letter
For the reasons stated above (see supra Part (III)(B)(3)(i)), the court will grant summary
judgment for CLC with respect to the fourteen pages of drafts of the Gary Letter. Because the
relevant decision is DOJ’s decision to issue the letter, these drafts are not pre-decisional and thus
may not be withheld pursuant to the deliberative process privilege under Exemption 5.
ii. “Draft response”
The record provides very little information about this draft letter. The Vaughn Index
establishes that it is dated February 13, 2018, so it does not appear to be another draft of the Gary
Letter (which was finalized in December 2017.) The title of the document in the Vaughn Index is
“Draft Response. Census. Honorable Vicente Gonzalez” but the description states only that “this is
a draft letter.” (Allen Decl. at 9.) Neither the JMD declaration nor the briefing provide any
additional information. With so little information, the court cannot meaningfully determine whether
the draft properly falls under Exemption 5. See King v. DOJ, 830 F.2d 210 (D.C. Cir. 1987)
(“Affidavits submitted by a governmental agency in justification for the claimed exemption must . .
26
. enable the District Court to make a rational decision whether the withheld material must be
produced . . .”) (internal quotations omitted). Drafts are not presumptively privileged, and the court
must consider whether the document was pre-decisional (and what the relevant decision is), as well
as whether the document was deliberative. See Judicial Watch. Inc., 297 F. Supp. 2d at 260. On
the current record, the court cannot make such a determination. The court will therefore deny
summary judgment for both DOJ and CLC and direct JMD to provide an additional declaration.
iii. Robinson-Gary Email
The record also provides insufficient information about this email. JMD’s Vaughn index
states only that “this is an interagency communication discussing how the Commerce Department is
considering handling a matter.” (Allen Decl. at 8.) DOJ’s briefing provides no further elucidation.
(Def. MSJ; Def. Reply at 14.) JMD’s declaration states that the email was an “inter-agency
discussion[] between [] Commerce and [DOJ] employees related to agency decision-making.
(Allen Decl. ¶ 18.) This information is not enough for the court to make a meaningful decision
about whether the records were properly withheld under Exemption 5. As to this email, then, the
court will deny summary judgment for DOJ and CLC and direct JMD to supply an additional
declaration.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment will be granted in
part and denied in part, and Plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment will be granted in part
and denied in part. A corresponding Order will follow shortly.
Date: June 1, 2020
Tanya S. Chutkan
TANYA S. CHUTKAN
United States District Judge
27