MEMORANDUM *
In this action under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552 [607] et seq., plaintiff-appellant Center for Biological Diversity (“CBD”) appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendant-appellee Office of the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”). CBD sought information regarding the Softwood Lumber Agreement (“SLA”) between the United States and Canada, particularly details of the distribution of the so-called “meritorious initiatives” funding. CBD challenges the district court’s holding that the USTR conducted an adequate search for documents responsive to CBD’s FOIA request, see id. § 552(a)(3)(C); its determination that certain records were properly withheld under Exemptions 5 and 6, see id. § 552(b)(5) & (6); and its refusal of CBD’s request to conduct further discovery.
We employ a two-step test in reviewing summary judgment in a FOIA case. See Elec. Frontier Found, v. Dir. Nat’l Intelligence, 639 F.3d 876, 883 (9th Cir.2010). We first review de novo “whether the district court had an adequate factual basis for its decision.” Lion Raisins Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 354 F.3d 1072, 1078 (9th Cir.2004) (citations omitted). If the district court’s decision had an adequate factual basis, we proceed to step two, where “we review the district court’s [findings] of fact for clear error, while legal rulings, including [the district court’s] decision that a particular exemption applies, are reviewed de novo.” Elec. Frontier Found., 639 F.3d at 883 (quotation marks and citations omitted).
Because the district court applied the wrong legal standards and neglected to engage in the correct legal analyses in its summary judgment orders, we vacate those orders and remand for further proceedings.
1. The district court erred in holding that the record before it demonstrated that the USTR had conducted an adequate search for records responsive to the FOIA request. CBD’s request asked for all records “related to the USTR’s implementation” of the “meritorious initiatives” program. The settlement agreement that created the “meritorious initiatives” program was reached in April 2006. Yet, as the USTR concedes, the time frame of its search for responsive records began in June 2006. We reject the USTR’s contention that it was justified in limiting its search to this time period because “detailed discussion of implementation issues” did not occur until June 2006.
CBD’s duty under the FOIA is to conduct a search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(C)-(D) (requiring agencies to conduct a search reasonably calculated to uncover all records responsive to the request). Relevance is measured with respect to which records were requested. Restricting the search for documents to that time period in which “detailed discussion of implementation issues” occurred is simply not warranted by CBD’s request, which asked for all records related to the implementation of the program. Based on the record before us, it is reasonably likely that records responsive to CBD’s request were generated as early as April or May of 2006; by failing to search for records during that time period, therefore, the USTR did not conduct an adequate search.1
[608] Probably a more important point is that none of the USTR’s declarations or Vaughn indices provide specific information regarding what files were searched, what search terms were used, why further searches are unlikely to produce additional records, or why additional searches are impractical. We have explained that “[i]n camera review of the withheld documents by the court is not an acceptable substitute for an adequate Vaughn index,” for such review “does not permit effective advocacy.” Wiener v. FBI, 943 F.2d 972, 979 (9th Cir.1991) (citations omitted). “Therefore, resort to in camera review is appropriate only after the government has submitted as detailed public affidavits and testimony as possible.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). Agency affidavits that do not establish which files were searched and by whom, or which do not provide specific information adequate to enable the FOIA requestor to challenge the procedures utilized, are inadequate to permit the federal courts to fulfill the statutory duty to review the agency’s action de novo. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B); Lahr v. Nat’l Transp. Safety Bd., 569 F.3d 964, 989 (9th Cir.2009). On remand, the USTR must supplement the record with affidavits that meet these criteria before the district court can determine whether the search was adequate.2
2. The district court also lacked an adequate factual basis to rule on the propriety of the USTR’s withholding of certain documents under Exemption 5. That exemption permits agencies to withhold “inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters” that qualify for the attorney-client, attorney work-product, and/or deliberative process privileges. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5); see also, e.g., Maricopa Audubon Soc’y v. U.S. Forest Serv., 108 F.3d 1089, 1092-93 (9th Cir.1997). The threshold question with the application of any privilege under Exemption 5 is whether the records are “inter-agency or intra-agency.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5); Dep’t of the Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protective Ass’n, 532 U.S. 1, 12, 121 S.Ct. 1060, 149 L.Ed.2d 87 (2001) (“Klamath ”). If a document is neither inter- nor intra-agency, then an agency may not withhold it, regardless of whether or not it reflects the deliberative process of the agency, attorney work product, or is an attorney-client communication. See Klamath, 532 U.S. at 12, 121 S.Ct. 1060.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
MEMORANDUM *
In this action under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552 [607] et seq., plaintiff-appellant Center for Biological Diversity (“CBD”) appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendant-appellee Office of the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”). CBD sought information regarding the Softwood Lumber Agreement (“SLA”) between the United States and Canada, particularly details of the distribution of the so-called “meritorious initiatives” funding. CBD challenges the district court’s holding that the USTR conducted an adequate search for documents responsive to CBD’s FOIA request, see id. § 552(a)(3)(C); its determination that certain records were properly withheld under Exemptions 5 and 6, see id. § 552(b)(5) & (6); and its refusal of CBD’s request to conduct further discovery.
We employ a two-step test in reviewing summary judgment in a FOIA case. See Elec. Frontier Found, v. Dir. Nat’l Intelligence, 639 F.3d 876, 883 (9th Cir.2010). We first review de novo “whether the district court had an adequate factual basis for its decision.” Lion Raisins Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 354 F.3d 1072, 1078 (9th Cir.2004) (citations omitted). If the district court’s decision had an adequate factual basis, we proceed to step two, where “we review the district court’s [findings] of fact for clear error, while legal rulings, including [the district court’s] decision that a particular exemption applies, are reviewed de novo.” Elec. Frontier Found., 639 F.3d at 883 (quotation marks and citations omitted).
Because the district court applied the wrong legal standards and neglected to engage in the correct legal analyses in its summary judgment orders, we vacate those orders and remand for further proceedings.
1. The district court erred in holding that the record before it demonstrated that the USTR had conducted an adequate search for records responsive to the FOIA request. CBD’s request asked for all records “related to the USTR’s implementation” of the “meritorious initiatives” program. The settlement agreement that created the “meritorious initiatives” program was reached in April 2006. Yet, as the USTR concedes, the time frame of its search for responsive records began in June 2006. We reject the USTR’s contention that it was justified in limiting its search to this time period because “detailed discussion of implementation issues” did not occur until June 2006.
CBD’s duty under the FOIA is to conduct a search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(C)-(D) (requiring agencies to conduct a search reasonably calculated to uncover all records responsive to the request). Relevance is measured with respect to which records were requested. Restricting the search for documents to that time period in which “detailed discussion of implementation issues” occurred is simply not warranted by CBD’s request, which asked for all records related to the implementation of the program. Based on the record before us, it is reasonably likely that records responsive to CBD’s request were generated as early as April or May of 2006; by failing to search for records during that time period, therefore, the USTR did not conduct an adequate search.1
[608] Probably a more important point is that none of the USTR’s declarations or Vaughn indices provide specific information regarding what files were searched, what search terms were used, why further searches are unlikely to produce additional records, or why additional searches are impractical. We have explained that “[i]n camera review of the withheld documents by the court is not an acceptable substitute for an adequate Vaughn index,” for such review “does not permit effective advocacy.” Wiener v. FBI, 943 F.2d 972, 979 (9th Cir.1991) (citations omitted). “Therefore, resort to in camera review is appropriate only after the government has submitted as detailed public affidavits and testimony as possible.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). Agency affidavits that do not establish which files were searched and by whom, or which do not provide specific information adequate to enable the FOIA requestor to challenge the procedures utilized, are inadequate to permit the federal courts to fulfill the statutory duty to review the agency’s action de novo. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B); Lahr v. Nat’l Transp. Safety Bd., 569 F.3d 964, 989 (9th Cir.2009). On remand, the USTR must supplement the record with affidavits that meet these criteria before the district court can determine whether the search was adequate.2
2. The district court also lacked an adequate factual basis to rule on the propriety of the USTR’s withholding of certain documents under Exemption 5. That exemption permits agencies to withhold “inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters” that qualify for the attorney-client, attorney work-product, and/or deliberative process privileges. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5); see also, e.g., Maricopa Audubon Soc’y v. U.S. Forest Serv., 108 F.3d 1089, 1092-93 (9th Cir.1997). The threshold question with the application of any privilege under Exemption 5 is whether the records are “inter-agency or intra-agency.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5); Dep’t of the Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protective Ass’n, 532 U.S. 1, 12, 121 S.Ct. 1060, 149 L.Ed.2d 87 (2001) (“Klamath ”). If a document is neither inter- nor intra-agency, then an agency may not withhold it, regardless of whether or not it reflects the deliberative process of the agency, attorney work product, or is an attorney-client communication. See Klamath, 532 U.S. at 12, 121 S.Ct. 1060.
Many of the records at issue here are communications between government officials and private third parties. This fact alone suggests they do not meet Exemption 5’s threshold requirement. See id. Under the so-called “consultant corollary,” however, an agency can invoke Exemption 5 with regard to records of communications with a third party if that private individual was acting “just as a[ ] [government] employee would be expected to do” — meaning that she was not “representing] an interest of [her] own, or the interest of any other client, when [she] advise[d] the agency that hire[d] [her],” and that her “only obligations [were] to truth and [her] sense of what good judgment calls for.” Id. at 11, 121 S.Ct. 1060. If, on the other hand, the consultant was “an interested party seeking a Government benefit at the expense of other appli[609] cants,” id. at 12 n. 4, 121 S.Ct. 1060, Exemption 5 is wholly inapplicable.
Here, the district court failed to consider Exemption 5’s threshold inquiry. It stated, instead, that because: (a) the communications furthered the government’s deliberations; and (b) the individuals were “consulted in confidence,” Exemption 5 applied. This was error. While the first factor is a necessary condition to the application of the deliberative process privilege, and the second factor may be relevant to a claim of attorney-client privilege, neither is relevant to the threshold question of whether Exemption 5 applies at all — that is, whether the records are inter- or intraagency. See Klamath, 5B2 U.S. at 12, 121 S.Ct. 1060 (holding that the determination that records are not inter- or intra-agency “rules out any application of Exemption 5”). The relevant factual inquiry as to that question is the nature of the relationships between the government agency and the third party or parties. See id. at 14, 121 S.Ct. 1060. The record is insufficiently developed on that point; nor is it clear which documents were shared with which third parties. We therefore remand for the supplementation of the record and for the district court to apply Klamath.3
3. Finally, the district court erred in holding that the USTR was justified in withholding certain information under Exemption 6, which applies to “personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6). CBD does not challenge the withholding of home addresses or telephone numbers, but it argues that the district court failed to apply the proper standard in evaluating whether the USTR could withhold the names of third parties considered for inclusion on a board of directors of a newly-established foundation created to receive “meritorious initiatives” funds. We agree.
In assessing the applicability of Exemption 6 on remand, the district court should “consider, first, whether the information is contained in a personnel, medical, or ‘similar’ file, and, second, whether release of the information would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of the person’s privacy.” Elec. Frontier Found., 639 F.3d at 886 (quotation marks and citation omitted). At the second step, the district court should “balance the individual’s privacy interest against the extent to which FOIA’s central purpose of opening agency action to public scrutiny would be served by disclosure.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Prudential Locations LLC v. U.S. Dep’t Housing and Urban Dev., 648 F.3d 768, 771-74 (9th Cir. 2011).
VACATED and REMANDED.