Ecological Rights Foundation v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

Filing 113

ORDER Following In Camera Review. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 6/3/2021. (dmrlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/3/2021)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ECOLOGICAL RIGHTS FOUNDATION,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9

Case No. 18-cv-00394-DMR
ORDER FOLLOWING IN CAMERA
REVIEW
Re: Dkt. Nos. 97, 100

10

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendant.
12
13
14

I.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Ecological Rights Foundation (“ERF”) and Defendant United States

15

Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) filed cross motions for summary judgment. [Docket

16

Nos. 97, 100.] As described in the court’s September 16, 2020 order, their briefs and supporting

17

materials were organized in a way that “seem[ed] engineered to make the court’s review of the

18

motions as difficult and complicated as possible,” including EPA’s submission of a 1172-page

19

unnumbered Vaughn index, the parties’ inclusion of argument in supporting documents, and their

20

mutual failure to organize their discussion of the withheld documents in a way to facilitate the

21

court’s review. [Docket No. 105.]

22

The court also noted that EPA’s Vaughn index was problematic with respect to the

23

requirements of the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016 (“FIA”). The FIA prohibits agencies from

24

withholding information responsive to a FOIA request unless “the agency reasonably foresees that

25

disclosure would harm an interest protected by an exemption described in [5 U.S.C. § 552(b)]; or .

26

. . disclosure is prohibited by law.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(8)(A). In order to meet this “independent

27

and meaningful burden,” “an agency must ‘identify specific harms to the relevant protected

28

interests that it can reasonably foresee would actually ensue from disclosure of the withheld

1

materials’ and ‘connect[ ] the harms in [a] meaningful way to the information withheld.’” Ctr. for

2

Investigative Reporting v. U.S. Customs & Border Prot., 436 F. Supp. 3d 90, 106 (D.D.C. 2019)

3

(quoting Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, No. 17-0832 (CKK), 2019 WL 4644029, at

4

*5 (D.D.C. Sept. 24, 2019) (“Judicial Watch II”). The court noted that EPA’s identified harms

5

“appear[ed] to consist of the type of general explanations and boiler plate language rejected in

6

previous cases.” [Docket No. 105 at 2-3 (quotation marks and citations omitted).] In order to get

7

a handle on the parties’ chaotic presentations, the court ordered EPA to select 20 examples of

8

withheld documents for in camera review, for which EPA contends that the harm likely to result

9

from disclosure is “obvious” based on the description of the document on the Vaughn index and
the identified harm. See Rosenberg v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., 442 F. Supp. 3d 240, 259 (D.D.C. 2020)

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

(discussing instances where “the withheld information may be so obviously sensitive . . . that a

12

simple statement illustrating why the privilege applies and identifying the harm likely to result

13

from release ‘may be enough.’”). It also ordered ERF to identify (and EPA to lodge) ten examples

14

of withheld documents that illustrate its contention that EPA made improper assertions of

15

exemptions and/or insufficient claims of foreseeable harm from disclosure. EPA timely lodged all

16

30 exemplar documents for in camera review. [See Docket Nos. 106-108.]

17

One of the court’s original overarching concerns with EPA’s Vaughn index was that it

18

used boilerplate language to support the requirements of the FIA. This potentially affects all

19

withheld documents, because even if EPA could meet its burden of establishing that each

20

document is subject to a FOIA exemption, it cannot withhold a document unless it can also make

21

the requisite showing of harm under the FIA. See Ctr. for Investigative Reporting v. U.S. Dep’t of

22

Lab., 424 F. Supp. 3d 771, 780 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (“even if information falls within the scope of a

23

discretionary exemption, it cannot be withheld from the public unless the agency also shows that

24

disclosure will harm the interest protected by that exemption” under the FIA). For this reason, the

25

court chose to test this foundational problem by ordering the identification of exemplars as

26

described above. However, having now reviewed the documents submitted for in camera review

27

along with the accompanying Vaughn index entries, the court finds that many of EPA’s claims of

28

exemption are not supported by the record, by the law, or both.
2

1

Therefore, in order to move the parties’ dispute toward final resolution, the court sets forth

2

rulings on the 30 exemplar documents based on the current record. These benchmark rulings will

3

serve as guidance to the parties with respect to the remaining documents.

4

II.

5

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW
EPA withheld the 30 exemplars on the basis of two FOIA exemptions: Exemption 5, which

protects from disclosure “inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not

7

be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency . . . ,” and

8

Exemption 6, which exempts from production “personnel and medical files and similar files the

9

disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 5

10

U.S.C. § 552(b)(5), (6). Exemption 5 “protects from disclosure ‘those documents normally

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

6

privileged in the civil discovery context.’” Our Children’s Earth Found. v. Nat’l Marine

12

Fisheries Serv., 85 F. Supp. 3d 1074, 1086 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (quoting NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck &

13

Co., 421 U.S. 132, 149 (1975)). Here, EPA asserts the deliberative process privilege, the attorney-

14

client privilege, and the presidential communications privilege under Exemption 5.

15
16
17
18
19

The court addresses the documents submitted for in camera review under the claimed
exemptions, and where appropriate, discusses the documents in groups.
A.

Exemption 5
1.

Documents Withheld on the Basis of the Deliberative Process Privilege

EPA withheld 23 of the 30 exemplars on the basis of the deliberative process privilege.

20

The deliberative process privilege protects ‘the decision making processes of government

21

agencies’ in order to ‘prevent injury to the quality of agency decisions.” N.L.R.B. v. Sears,

22

Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 150-51 (1975 (quotation marks and citations omitted). “The

23

underlying premise of the privilege is that agency decision-making might be impaired if

24

discussions within the agency were subject to public review, thereby discouraging ‘frank

25

discussion of legal or policy matters.’” In re McKesson Governmental Entities Average

26

Wholesale Price Litig., 264 F.R.D. 595, 600 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (quoting Sears, 421 U.S. at 150).

27

The Ninth Circuit has “defined the ambit of the deliberative process privilege . . . narrowly.”

28

Sierra Club, Inc. v. United States Fish & Wildlife Serv., 925 F.3d 1000, 1011 (9th Cir. 2019). In
3

1

order for the deliberative process privilege to apply, “a document must be both (1) predecisional or

2

antecedent to the adoption of agency policy and (2) deliberative, meaning it must actually be

3

related to the process by which policies are formulated.” Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. U.S. Forest Serv.,

4

861 F.2d 1114, 1117 (9th Cir. 1988) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

5
6

a.

Human Resources and Staffing Decisions Documents

Twelve of the 23 documents that EPA withheld on the basis of the deliberative process

7

privilege can be categorized as documents and communications related to human resources and/or

8

staffing issues. Of the 12 documents, six are related to human resources/staffing issues, while the

9

remaining six are related to EPA’s decisions to offer employees early retirement or incentives to

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

voluntarily separate (the “VERA/VSIP offering”). The court addresses each group in turn.
i. General Human Resources/Staffing Issues
Exemplar 1 is an undated four-page document. EPA’s Vaughn index describes it as a

13

document that “contains multiple proposals and discussion suggestions from multiple Agency

14

employees regarding proposed restructuring of the Agency, proposed improvements to

15

organizational effectiveness, and other workforce shaping considerations and options.” Vaughn

16

Index 27. The document reflects ideas and proposals regarding human resources and staffing

17

decisions to improve efficiency, reduce operating costs, and better manage EPA’s workforce.

18

According to EPA, the document “reflects pre-decisional deliberations among EPA staff and

19

superiors regarding potential reform and restructuring options for the Agency.” Id.

20

Exemplar 1 does not fall within the scope of the deliberative process privilege. It sets out

21

human resources proposals that do not clearly bear on agency policies or programs. See Nat’l

22

Wildlife Fed’n, 861 F.2d at 1118 (“Exemption 5 was created to prevent the disruption of a free

23

flow of ideas, opinions, advice and frank discussions within agencies concerning their policies and

24

programs.”). The deliberative process privilege “shields from public disclosure confidential inter-

25

agency memoranda on matters of law or policy,” and a document is part of the “‘deliberative

26

process’ as long as it is ‘actually . . . related to the process by which policies are formulated.’” Id.

27

at 1116, 1118. As one court noted, “[b]ecause the privilege ‘is centrally concerned with protecting

28

the process by which policy is formulated,’ only those materials that bear on the formulation or
4

1

exercise of agency policy-oriented judgment fall within the privilege.” Greenpeace v. Nat’l

2

Marine Fisheries Serv., 198 F.R.D. 540, 543 (W.D. Wash. 2000) (emphasis in original) (quoting

3

Petroleum Info. Corp. v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 976 F.2d 1429, 1435 (D.C. Cir. 1992)).

4

“Conversely, when materials could not reasonably be said to reveal an agency’s or official’s mode

5

of formulating or exercising policy-implicating judgment, the deliberative process privilege is

6

inapplicable.” Id. (emphasis added) (quoting Petroleum Info. Corp., 976 F.2d at 1435).

7

Exemplar 1 does not bear on “the process by which policy is formulated” or “reveal

8

[EPA’s] mode of formulating or exercising policy-implicating judgment,” see Petroleum Info.

9

Corp., 976 F.2d at 1435, and EPA does not offer any authority that an agency’s process of making
human resources decisions is “deliberative” within the meaning of the privilege. See, e.g.,

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Chattler v. United States, No. C-07-4040 MMC (EMC), 2009 WL 1313227, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May

12

12, 2009) (noting that the assertion of the privilege was “inappropriate or . . . at least questionable

13

with respect to what appear to be logistical decisions,” including approaches to staffing, as

14

opposed to “policy-type decision[s]”); Rosenberg v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., 342 F. Supp. 3d 62, 79

15

(D.D.C. 2018) (comparing internal deliberations about “a possible new detention operation in the

16

continental United States” with “more benign[ ] categories of withheld deliberative information,”

17

such as opinions about the current state of facilities and recommendations and advice about

18

maintenance issues). The relevant portions of the Coogan and White declarations in support of

19

EPA’s cross motion for summary judgment do not explain how the personnel decisions discussed

20

in Exemplar 1 are connected in any way to EPA’s substantive policy issues or statutory duties.

21

[See Docket No. 100-1 (Coogan Decl., Jul. 23, 2020) ¶¶ 54-62; 100-2 (White Decl., Jul. 23, 2020)

22

¶¶ 35-47.]

23

Additionally, these declarations do not address an identifiable decision connected to

24

Exemplar 1. The Ninth Circuit has explained that in order to fall within the deliberative process

25

privilege, “[t]he documents must be prepared to assist an agency decision-maker in arriving at a

26

future particular decision, although [courts] need not be able to identify retroactively ‘the actual

27

decision that was made’ on the basis of the withheld documents.” Lahr v. Nat’l Transp. Safety

28

Bd., 569 F.3d 964, 981 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Maricopa Audubon Soc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 108
5

1

F.3d 1089, 1094 (9th Cir. 1997)). However, “the absence of an identifiable later decision is of

2

considerable relevance to the deliberative process privilege, as evidence of whether a later

3

decision was indeed under consideration. Otherwise, the privilege would be boundless, as ‘[a]ny

4

memorandum always will be ‘predecisional’ if referenced to a decision that possibly may be made

5

at some undisclosed time in the future.’” Lahr, 569 F.3d at 981 (quoting Assembly of State of Cal.

6

v. U.S. Dep’t of Com., 968 F.2d 916, 921 (9th Cir. 1992)).
Accordingly, on the current record, the court finds that EPA has not established that the

7
8

deliberative process privilege applies to shield Exemplar 1 from production.
EPA withheld other exemplars that reflect human resources matters on the basis of

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

deliberative process privilege, as follows:
•

Exemplar 5 is a June 30, 2017 email chain “regarding a white paper written by [one of the

12

email chain participants] about veterans’ employment.” Vaughn Index 72. EPA redacted

13

portions of two emails on the grounds that they reflect “pre-decisional deliberations among

14

EPA staff and superiors regarding the veterans’ employment program as well as what next

15

steps the Agency should take as a result of the findings of the white paper.” Id. As

16

discussed above, EPA has not established that discussions regarding veterans’ employment

17

at EPA in general fall within the deliberative process privilege as they do not bear on “the

18

process by which policy is formulated” or “reveal [EPA’s] mode of formulating or

19

exercising policy-implicating judgment.” See Petroleum Info. Corp., 976 F.2d at 1435.

20

Further, the Vaughn index does not provide information about an identifiable later decision

21

regarding veterans’ employment. See Lahr, 569 F.3d at 981 (“[t]he documents must be

22

prepared to assist an agency decision-maker in arriving at a future particular decision”).

23

•

Exemplar 6 is a “two-page draft strategy, entitled ‘AO-Managing FTE Levels (Revised 12-

24

5-17).docx,’ which was shared . . . within the EPA Office of Administrative and Executive

25

Services . . .” Vaughn Index 398. According to EPA, the information “is pre-decisional

26

because it was created for the purpose of assisting OEX managers in developing a strategy

27

for managing FTE levels in OEX within the Office of the Administrator” and “contains

28

proposal and options for managing pending and future personnel requests.” Id. As
6

1

discussed above, EPA has not established that discussions regarding general personnel

2

matters and hiring plans fall within the deliberative process privilege as they do not bear on

3

“the process by which policy is formulated” or “reveal [EPA’s] mode of formulating or

4

exercising policy-implicating judgment.” See Petroleum Info. Corp., 976 F.2d at 1435.

5

Further, the Vaughn index does not provide information about an identifiable later decision

6

regarding managing FTE levels. See Lahr, 569 F.3d at 981 (“[t]he documents must be

7

prepared to assist an agency decision-maker in arriving at a future particular decision”).

8

•

Exemplar 7 is a “three-page, draft document that is entitled ‘Summary of Impacts of
Reduced FTE Levels’” that “lay[s] out preliminary thoughts on the impact of reducing

9

FTEs in the specific offices.” Vaughn Index 408. EPA states the “withheld information is

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

pre-decisional because it was created for the purpose of assisting OA managers in

12

developing a plan for managing FTE levels in OA,” and was shared in November 2017 to

13

“serve as discussion pieces that will assist decisionmakers as they assess the staffing needs

14

of various offices in the OA.” Id. As discussed above, EPA has not established that

15

discussions regarding general personnel matters and hiring plans fall within the

16

deliberative process privilege as they do not to bear on “the process by which policy is

17

formulated” or “reveal [EPA’s] mode of formulating or exercising policy-implicating

18

judgment.” See Petroleum Info. Corp., 976 F.2d at 1435. Further, the Vaughn index does

19

not provide information about an identifiable later decision regarding “managing FTE

20

levels in OA.” See Lahr, 569 F.3d at 981 (“[t]he documents must be prepared to assist an

21

agency decision-maker in arriving at a future particular decision”).

22

•

Exemplar 8 is a “three-page, draft document that is entitled ‘OA Major Issues.docx’” that

23

was attached to emails dated April 4, 2017. Vaughn Index 418. EPA states “[t]he

24

withheld information is pre-decisional because it was created for the purpose of assisting

25

EPA senior leaders in understanding each office’s major program activities, highlighting

26

major issues and concerns in those programs,” and that “the withheld information contains

27

analysis that support the business case for presenting a business case for OA to maintain its

28

resources.” Id. The document “serve[d] as a discussion piece that will assist
7

1

decisionmakers in accessing the staffing needs of various offices in the OA.” Id. As

2

discussed above, EPA has not established that discussions regarding “staffing needs” fall

3

within the deliberative process privilege as they do not bear on “the process by which

4

policy is formulated” or “reveal [EPA’s] mode of formulating or exercising policy-

5

implicating judgment.” See Petroleum Info. Corp., 976 F.2d at 1435. Further, the Vaughn

6

index does not provide information about an identifiable later decision regarding “the

7

staffing needs of various offices in the OA.” See Lahr, 569 F.3d at 981 (“[t]he documents

8

must be prepared to assist an agency decision-maker in arriving at a future particular

9

decision”).

10

•

ERF Exemplar 1 is an August 8, 2017 email “concerning the departure of an EPA

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

employee, and discussing options for getting help with Human Resources (HR) work after

12

the employee departs” EPA. Vaughn Index 16. According to EPA, it withheld a portion of

13

the email “because it reflects internal Agency advice, recommendations, and opinions

14

relating to personnel decisions, and considerations regarding Agency organization and

15

structure” and “reflects only the thoughts and opinions of Agency staff engaged in

16

weighing options for how to address the work responsibilities of a departing Agency

17

employee after that employee has left the Agency.” Id. As discussed above, EPA has not

18

established that discussions regarding “how to address the work responsibilities of a

19

departing Agency employee” fall within the deliberative process privilege as they do not

20

bear on “the process by which policy is formulated” or “reveal [EPA’s] mode of

21

formulating or exercising policy-implicating judgment.” See Petroleum Info. Corp., 976

22

F.2d at 1435. Further, the Vaughn index does not provide information about an

23

identifiable later decision regarding this issue. See Lahr, 569 F.3d at 981 (“[t]he

24

documents must be prepared to assist an agency decision-maker in arriving at a future

25

particular decision”).

26
27
28

ii. VERA/VSIP
The remaining six documents in this group constitute communications and/or draft
documents related to EPA’s offering of Voluntary Early Retirement Authority (“VERA”) and
8

1

Voluntary Separation Incentive Payment Authority (“VSIP”) in 2014 and 2017. Daniel Coogan,

2

Acting Director of the Office of Resources and Business Operations within the Office of Mission

3

Support, explains that VERA “allows agencies that are undergoing substantial restructuring,

4

reshaping, downsizing, transfer of function, or reorganization to temporarily lower the age and

5

service requirements in order to increase the number of employees who are eligible for

6

retirement.” Coogan Decl. ¶¶ 1, 55. VSIP, which is “also known as buyout authority, allows

7

agencies that are downsizing or restructuring to offer employees lump-sum payments as an

8

incentive to voluntarily separate.” Id. at ¶ 55. The United States Office of Personnel Management

9

(“OPM”) and Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) “must approve an agency’s

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

VERA/VSIP business case before an agency may implement a VERA/VSIP offering.” Id.
In connection with EPA’s 2017 VERA/VSIP offering, Coogan states that “each EPA

12

region and program office submitted a proposed VERA/VSIP business case to EPA

13

Headquarters,” which then provided feedback and proposed edits regarding the draft business case

14

documents. Id. “After this internal editing process, all of the regions’ and program offices’

15

business cases were consolidated into one document, EPA’s consolidated VERA/VSIP business

16

case,” and beginning on June 16, 2017, EPA submitted drafts of the consolidated VERA/VSIP

17

business case to OPM and OMB. EPA submitted its business case to OPM and OMB on July 7,

18

2017. Id. ERF states that OMB provided its final approval of EPA’s VERA/VSIP proposal on the

19

same day, July 7, 2017, and that OPM provided its approval on July 10, 2017. [Docket No. 98

20

(Sproul Decl., Jul. 2, 2020) ¶¶ 43, 44.]

21

EPA’s declarations do not address a separate VERA/VSIP offering but based on the

22

court’s review of the documents submitted for in camera review, it appears that EPA also offered

23

VERA/VSIP in 2014. See, e.g., ERF Exemplar 3.

24

Notably, ERF does not challenge EPA’s withholding of certain documents related to the

25

2017 VERA/VSIP program as “failing to constitute an Agency decision for DPP purposes.” See

26

Pl.’s Cross-Opp’n and Reply 10. In other words, ERF agrees with EPA that the decision to

27

proceed with offering VERA/VSIP in 2017 is a “decision” for purposes of the privilege. Given

28

the parties’ agreement, the court need not decide the issue of whether it constitutes a “decision”
9

1
2
3
4

under the deliberative process privilege.
EPA withheld the following VERA/VSIP-related documents on the basis of the
deliberative process privilege:
•

Exemplar 4 is an undated document containing questions from OMB and answers from
EPA regarding an unspecified VERA/VSIP business case submission that “reflects

6

preliminary thoughts, recommendations, and opinions that were considered as part of

7

the Agency’s decision-making process for responding to OPM and OMB’s comments

8

concerning EPA’s VERA/VSIP business case.” Vaughn Index 71. The document is

9

not marked “draft” and appears to be EPA’s final answers to the questions posed by

10

OMB after EPA had already submitted its business case. The document is therefore

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

5

not “predecisional” or “deliberative.” EPA has also not established that a decision

12

about how to answer the OMB’s questions about the VERA/VSIP business case is the

13

type of decision within the scope of the deliberative process privilege, and EPA offers

14

no authority supporting its decision to withhold the document.

15

•

Exemplar 9 is “the initial draft narrative for OECA’s VERA/VSIP business case” that

16

was attached to a May 4, 2017 email and “served as preliminary starting point for

17

OEI’s VERA/VSIP submission.” Vaughn Index 428. While the document appears to

18

be both predecisional and deliberative, EPA’s articulation of the foreseeable harm that

19

would result from disclosure falls short of the mark. It states only that “[r]elease of the

20

withheld information would have a chilling effect on Agency decision-making

21

processes, and on the Agency’s ability to have open and frank discussions and

22

consultations concerning what to consider and how to present information in a

23

VERA/VSIP business case . . .” Id. at 429. This is boilerplate and fails to connect the

24

harm in a meaningful way to the information withheld. See Ctr. for Investigative

25

Reporting, 436 F. Supp. 3d at 106.

26

•

ERF’s Exemplar 2 is an email chain dated July 13, 2017 “concerning what to include

27

in the tracker for VERA/VSIP applications.” Vaughn Index 115. EPA redacted

28

portions of two emails in the chain. According to EPA, the redacted portions of the
10

1

emails are “deliberative because EPA employees and managers were internally

2

considering how to properly track applicants and other personnel related questions

3

concerning the implementation of the VERA/VSIP offering at the Agency.” Id. These

4

emails post-date OMB and OPM’s final approval of EPA’s VERA/VSIP business case.

5

EPA has not established that a decision about the logistics of how to implement the

6

VERA/VSIP offering, separate and apart from the decision of whether to offer

7

VERA/VSIP to employees, is the type of decision within the scope of the deliberative

8

process privilege, and EPA offers no authority supporting its decision to withhold the

9

document.

10

•

ERF’s Exemplar 3 is an undated draft of a letter reminding employees of the March 5,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

2014 final date to apply for VERA/VSIP. Vaughn Index 130. Although the Vaughn

12

index provides few details about the context of this document, it appears that this

13

document post-dates a decision to offer VERA/VSIP in 2014. EPA has not established

14

that a decision about the logistics of how to implement the VERA/VSIP offering,

15

separate and apart from the decision of whether to offer VERA/VSIP to employees, is

16

the type of decision within the scope of the deliberative process privilege, and EPA

17

offers no authority supporting its decision to withhold the document.

18

•

ERF’s Exemplar 4 is an undated draft of a letter written to employees to explain the

19

2014 VERA/VSIP offering. Vaughn Index 131. According to EPA, the document

20

“reflects pre-decisional deliberations” regarding “how to present the VERA/VSIP

21

information to employees, and what should be included in such a communication.” Id.

22

EPA has not established that a decision about the logistics of how to implement the

23

VERA/VSIP offering, separate and apart from the decision of whether to offer

24

VERA/VSIP to employees, is the type of decision within the scope of the deliberative

25

process privilege, and EPA offers no authority supporting its decision to withhold the

26

document.

27
28

•

ERF’s Exemplar 5 is an email chain containing seven emails “discussing a draft
communication for senior leadership on the VERA/VSIP revised schedule and eOPF.”
11

1

Vaughn Index 366. The emails are dated July 19, 2017. EPA redacted a portion of one

2

of the emails in the chain; it states “[t]he withheld information . . . reflects pre-

3

decisional deliberations among EPA staff and superiors regarding EPA’s VERA/VSIP

4

offering and decisions related to how the Agency would implement VERA/VSIP.” Id.

5

The email chain post-dates OMB and OPM’s final approval of EPA’s VERA/VSIP

6

business case. EPA has not established that a decision about the logistics of how to

7

implement the VERA/VSIP offering, separate and apart from the decision of whether

8

to offer VERA/VSIP to employees, is the type of decision within the scope of the

9

deliberative process privilege, and EPA offers no authority supporting its decision to
withhold the document.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

b.

12

Responses to Oversight, Investigations, and the Media

The next group of exemplars that EPA withheld on the basis of the deliberative process

13

privilege include documents and communications regarding questions by congressional

14

committees, responses to investigations, press inquiries, and public statements. Eleven of the 23

15

documents withheld on the basis of the deliberative process privilege fall into this category.

16

For example, Exemplar 11 is a “draft of potential questions that then-Administrator Pruitt

17

may face in upcoming Congressional oversight and budget hearings” dated April 16, 2018.

18

Vaughn Index 1023. EPA states that the document “reflects internal agency analyses, advice, and

19

recommendations relating to possible questions that former Administrator Scott Pruitt could be

20

asked at upcoming Congressional hearings and suggested answers.” Id. The questions cover a

21

variety of subjects including ethics, spending, personnel, use of email, and travel practices.

22

Similarly, Exemplar 12 is a “draft version of a letter to House of Representatives Committee on

23

Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Trey Gowdy” that “was written to answer questions

24

. . . about former Administrator Pruitt’s use of first-class seating when flying for EPA business.”

25

Vaughn Index 1031. According to EPA, the document “reflects internal agency analyses, advice,

26

and recommendations on a draft response to Representative Gowdy.” It “was created for the

27

purpose of assisting EPA staff in reaching a decision on what information to include in the draft

28

letter” and assisted “agency decision-maker Ryan Jackson in that regard.” Id.
12

These documents do not fall within the deliberative process privilege. Generally,

2

preparation for testimony before Congress and responses to questions from lawmakers regarding

3

issues other than substantive policy issues or EPA’s statutory duties do not bear on “the process by

4

which policy is formulated” or “reveal [EPA’s] mode of formulating or exercising policy-

5

implicating judgment.” See Petroleum Info. Corp., 976 F.2d at 1435. In fact, these documents

6

reflect discussions about how to communicate decisions that EPA and Pruitt had already made and

7

actions they had already taken, and thus do not qualify as predecisional. As the Ninth Circuit has

8

explained, “the purpose of the deliberative process privilege is to protect the quality of an agency’s

9

decision; revealing ‘communications made after the decision and designed to explain it’ do not

10

affect a decision’s quality.” Lahr, 569 F.3d at 981-82 (quoting N.L.R.B. v. Sears, 421 U.S. 132,

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

152 (1975)). Several courts in this circuit have concluded that similar materials do not qualify for

12

the privilege for that reason. See, e.g., Riverkeeper v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 38 F. Supp. 3d

13

1207, 1219-20 (D. Or. 2014) (holding that draft communications materials were not “predecisional

14

in any meaningful sense”); Chattler, 2009 WL 1313227, at *2 (holding that “preparations related

15

to testimony before Congress or statements to Congress or the public (including press releases) . . .

16

do not seem to be decisions akin to policymaking” for purposes of the privilege); First Resort, Inc.

17

v. Herrera, No. CV 11-5534 SBA (KAW), 2014 WL 988773, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2014)

18

(finding that a draft press release was not protected by the privilege as it was not predecisional and

19

played no role in policy formulation); Mansourian v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Cal. at Davis, No.

20

CIVS 03-2591 FCD EFB, 2007 WL 4557104, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2007) (documents used

21

“to prepare for legislative testimony concerning past actions and decisions that were the subject of

22

pending lawsuits” were not predecisional; rather, “the documents were used to prepare for a post

23

hoc explanation of past actions”).

24

On the current record, the court finds that EPA has not established that the deliberative

25

process privilege applies to shield Exemplars 11 and 12 from production. EPA withheld the

26

following documents on similar grounds:

27
28

•

Exemplar 13 is an email chain dated March 26, 2018 discussing how to respond to “a
media inquiry from the Wall Street Journal asking for comment on the former
13

1

Administrator’s travel records.” Vaughn Index 1055. For the reasons discussed above,

2

EPA has not established that communications about how to respond to the media

3

regarding issues other than substantive policy matters or EPA’s statutory duties bear on

4

“the process by which policy is formulated” or “reveal [EPA’s] mode of formulating or

5

exercising policy-implicating judgment.” See Petroleum Info. Corp., 976 F.2d at 1435;

6

Riverkeeper, 38 F. Supp. 3d at 1219-20. Instead, they were for the purpose of

7

“prepar[ing] for a post-hoc explanation of past actions.” See Mansourian, 2007 WL

8

4557104, at *5. Accordingly, the emails do not fall within the deliberative process

9

privilege.

10

•

Exemplars 14, 16, and 17 are different threads of an email chain from April 2018

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

“discussing the response to a draft report by [Office of Inspector General] investigating

12

salary increases for seven employees in administratively appointed positions.” Vaughn

13

Index 1122, 1130, 1133. EPA redacted portions of the emails that “contain[ ] internal

14

agency discussions reflecting analyses, advice, and recommendations relating to EPA’s

15

review of the OIG draft report” and “suggest[ ] language to respond to any media

16

inquiries that the Agency may receive in response to the release of the final OIG

17

report.” Id. at 1123, 1131, 1133-34. For the reasons discussed above, EPA has not

18

established that communications about how to respond to OIG and the media regarding

19

issues other than substantive policy matters or EPA’s statutory duties bear on “the

20

process by which policy is formulated” or “reveal [EPA’s] mode of formulating or

21

exercising policy-implicating judgment.” See Petroleum Info. Corp., 976 F.2d at 1435;

22

Riverkeeper, 38 F. Supp. 3d at 1219-20. Instead, they were for the purpose of

23

“prepar[ing] for a post-hoc explanation of past actions.” See Mansourian, 2007 WL

24

4557104, at *5. Accordingly, the emails do not fall within the deliberative process

25

privilege.

26

•

Exemplar 15 is an email chain from April 3, 2018 “discussing a public statement to be

27

released concerning the Agency’s authority to offer raises under the Safe Drinking

28

Water Act to employees.” Vaughn Index 1127. According to EPA, the redacted
14

1

portions of the emails “contain[ ] internal agency discussions reflecting analyses,

2

advice, and recommendations relating to EPA’s public relations strategy concerning

3

the Agency’s authority under SDWA to offer raises to employees.” Id. For the reasons

4

discussed above, EPA has not established that communications about a public relations

5

strategy regarding employee raises bear on “the process by which policy is formulated”

6

or “reveal [EPA’s] mode of formulating or exercising policy-implicating judgment.”

7

See Petroleum Info. Corp., 976 F.2d at 1435; Riverkeeper, 38 F. Supp. 3d at 1219-20.

8

Accordingly, the emails do not fall within the deliberative process privilege.

9

•

EPA’s Alternate Exemplar 1 is an email chain from April 18, 2018 “proposing a
response to a press inquiry from the Associated Press concerning former Administrator

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Pruitt’s travel.” Vaughn Index 1036. EPA states the redacted portions of the emails

12

“contain[ ] internal agency discussions reflecting staff analyses, advice, and

13

recommendations relating to EPA’s communications and public relations strategy

14

concerning former Administrator Pruitt’s travel.” Id. For the reasons discussed above,

15

EPA has not established that communications about a public relations strategy and how

16

to respond to a press inquiry regarding issues other than substantive policy matters or

17

EPA’s statutory duties bear on “the process by which policy is formulated” or “reveal

18

[EPA’s] mode of formulating or exercising policy-implicating judgment.” See

19

Petroleum Info. Corp., 976 F.2d at 1435; Riverkeeper, 38 F. Supp. 3d at 1219-20.

20

Instead, they were for the purpose of “prepar[ing] for a post-hoc explanation of past

21

actions.” See Mansourian, 2007 WL 4557104, at *5. Accordingly, the emails do not

22

fall within the deliberative process privilege.

23

•

EPA’s Alternate Exemplar 3 is “a draft summary of deliberative comments from Ryan

24

Jackson relating to the Agency’s response to an OIG audit concerning the Agency’s

25

hiring authority under the Safe Water Drinking Act.” Vaughn Index 1172. According

26

to EPA, the document includes “draft audit responses and additional comments on the

27

draft response.” Id. For the reasons discussed above, EPA has not established that

28

internal analyses and recommendations how to respond to OIG regarding issues other
15

1

than substantive policy matters or EPA’s statutory duties bear on “the process by which

2

policy is formulated” or “reveal [EPA’s] mode of formulating or exercising policy-

3

implicating judgment.” See Petroleum Info. Corp., 976 F.2d at 1435; Riverkeeper, 38

4

F. Supp. 3d at 1219-20. Instead, they were for the purpose of “prepar[ing] for a post-

5

hoc explanation of past actions.” See Mansourian, 2007 WL 4557104, at *5.

6

Accordingly, the draft summary does not fall within the deliberative process privilege.

7

•

ERF Exemplar 6 is an email chain dated March 7, 2018 discussing which information

8

to include with a Presidential Rank Award nomination for Donna Vizian, Principal

9

Deputy Assistant Administrator for OARM and “how to characterize that information.”
Vaughn Index 440. According to EPA, the redacted portions of the emails “reflect[]

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

pre-decisional deliberations” about “which type of information to include within the

12

nomination document.” Id. EPA has not established that discussions regarding which

13

information to include with a Presidential Rank Award nomination for an EPA

14

employee fall within the deliberative process privilege as they do not bear on “the

15

process by which policy is formulated” or “reveal [EPA’s] mode of formulating or

16

exercising policy-implicating judgment.” See Petroleum Info. Corp., 976 F.2d at 1435.

17

Moreover, it appears that these emails post-date the decision to nominate the employee

18

for the award, and EPA has not established that a decision about how to justify the

19

nomination is the type of decision within the scope of the deliberative process

20

privilege. Accordingly, the email chain does not fall within the deliberative process

21

privilege.

22

•

ERF Exemplar 7 is an email chain dated February 8, 2018 “consisting of a discussion

23

among staff of EPA’s Office of Public Affairs (OPA) regarding how to respond to

24

several questions from a reporter about EPA employee morale.” Vaughn Index 759.

25

EPA states the redacted portions of the emails “consist of pre-decisional deliberations

26

among EPA staff regarding forming a response to the questions posed by the reporter”

27

about employee morale. Id. For the reasons discussed above, EPA has not established

28

that communications about how to respond to a press inquiry regarding issues other
16

1

than substantive policy matters or EPA’s statutory duties bear on “the process by which

2

policy is formulated” or “reveal [EPA’s] mode of formulating or exercising policy-

3

implicating judgment.” See Petroleum Info. Corp., 976 F.2d at 1435; Riverkeeper, 38

4

F. Supp. 3d at 1219-20. Accordingly, the emails do not fall within the deliberative

5

process privilege.

6
7

2.

Attorney-Client Privilege

EPA withheld two of the documents submitted for in camera review in whole or in part

8

based on the attorney-client privilege. The attorney-client privilege protects “confidential

9

communications between attorneys and clients, which are made for the purpose of giving legal
advice.” United States v. Richey, 632 F.3d 559, 566 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted); see

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. IBM Corp., No. 09-cv-5897-RS (PSG), 2011 WL 1599646, at *1

12

(N.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2011). The attorney-client privilege applies under the following

13

circumstances: (1) legal advice of any kind is sought (2) from a professional legal adviser in his

14

capacity as such, (3) the communications relating to that purpose, (4) made in confidence (5) by

15

the client, (6) are at his instance permanently protected (7) from disclosure by himself or by the

16

legal adviser, (8) unless the protection be waived. Richey, 632 F.3d at 566 (brackets, citation, and

17

quotation marks omitted). The privilege is “narrowly and strictly construed,” and the party

18

asserting it bears the burden of proving that it applies. Vasudevan Software, 2011 WL 1599646, at

19

*1 (footnotes and quotation marks omitted); accord United States v. Bergonzi, 216 F.R.D. 487,

20

493 (N.D. Cal. 2003) (holding that party asserting privilege “must make a prima facie showing”

21

that privilege applies) (citing In re Grand Jury Investigation, 974 F.2d 1068, 1071 (9th Cir.

22

1992)); see Richey, 632 F.3d at 566. The privilege protects only communications, and not

23

underlying facts. Upjohn v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 396 (1981) (finding that a party “may not

24

refuse to disclose any relevant fact within his knowledge merely because he incorporated a

25

statement of such fact into his communication to his attorney”) (citations omitted). “The privilege

26

extends to agencies as well to the extent the agency is consulting its attorney ‘as would any private

27

party seeking advice to protect personal interest.’” Our Children’s Earth Found., 85 F. Supp. 3d

28

at 1086 (quoting Ctr. for Bio. Diversity v. Office of Mgmt. & Budget, 625 F. Supp. 2d 885, 892
17

1

(N.D. Cal. 2009) (quotation marks and citation omitted)). “To support claims of attorney-client

2

privilege, the agency must, in its Vaughn index, ‘show that these documents involved the

3

provision of specifically legal advice or that they were intended to be confidential and were kept

4

confidential.’” Id. (quoting Nat’l Resources Def. Council v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., 388 F. Supp. 2d

5

1086, 1104 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (emphasis in original) (quotation omitted)).

6

EPA is withholding a portion of Exemplar 2, an email chain, on the basis of the attorney-

7

client privilege. EPA has redacted a portion of a June 6, 2017 email from Robert D. Coomber,

8

Senior Labor Attorney, Labor and Employee Relations Division, to seven individuals with EPA

9

email addresses. In his email, Coomber references “a memorandum on union notice re
VERA/VSIP,” and EPA has redacted Coomber’s brief summary of his advice. EPA states the

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

redacted portion of the email constitutes “legal advice provided by Robert Coomber in his capacity

12

as Senior Labor Attorney” in response to a request for such advice “on the Agency’s legal

13

obligations concerning its notice to unions regarding VERA/VSIP,” and that the attorney-client

14

privilege has not been waived.

15

Exemplar 3, which EPA is withholding in its entirety, appears to be the memo referenced

16

by Coomber in the June 6, 2017 email. It is a memo dated June 6, 2017 by Coomber and

17

addressed to Donna Vizian, Acting Assistant Administrator, OARM, an office within EPA. The

18

subject is “Union Notice re VERA/VSIP.” EPA states that the attorney-client privilege over the

19

memo has not been waived.

20

The court finds that EPA properly invoked the attorney-client privilege as to Examples 2

21

and 3. The June 6, 2017 email and memo are between an EPA attorney and EPA employees and

22

are confidential communications related to the provision of legal advice with respect to

23

VERA/VSIP.

24

Turning to foreseeable harm, EPA may not withhold these documents “unless the agency

25

also shows that disclosure will harm the interest protected by” Exemption 5. See Ctr. for

26

Investigative Reporting, 424 F. Supp. 3d at 780. Neither the White nor the Coogan declarations

27

describe any foreseeable harm that would result from disclosure. See White Decl. ¶¶ 48-51;

28

Coogan Decl. ¶ 53. Further, EPA’s Vaughn index does not set forth a clear statement regarding
18

1

the harm that would result from disclosure of attorney-client privileged communications. The

2

corresponding entries address only the segregability of the factual material in the documents:

3

“[r]elease of the factual material” in the documents “would . . . deprive the Agency of the benefit

4

of confidential legal advice by allowing the scrutiny of the select client-supplied facts that

5

informed the specific legal advice from the EPA attorney.” Vaughn Index 53-54. This fails to

6

address the harm that would result if the legal advice itself were disclosed, and EPA offers no

7

authority that it need not comply with the requirements of the FIA for documents withheld on the

8

basis of the attorney-client privilege. Given its failure to describe any foreseeable harm that would

9

result from disclosure, EPA may not withhold these documents.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

3.

Presidential Communications Privilege

EPA withheld portions of ERF’s Exemplar 8, pages from former Administrator Pruitt’s

12

calendar, based on the presidential communications privilege. The presidential communications

13

privilege is a “presumptive privilege for [p]residential communications” that “preserves the

14

President’s ability to obtain candid and informed opinions from his advisors and to make decisions

15

confidentially.” Karnoski v. Trump, 926 F.3d 1180, 1203 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting Loving v. Dep’t

16

of Def., 550 F.3d 32, 37 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (quoting United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 708

17

(1974))). The presidential communications privilege protects the following materials:

18
19
20
21
22

[C]ommunications directly involving and documents actually viewed
by the President, as well as 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. The privilege covers documents reflecting
presidential decision making and deliberations, regardless of whether
the documents are predecisional or not, and it covers the documents
in their entirety.
Karnoski, 926 F.3d at 1203 (quoting Loving, 550 F.3d at 37-38 (internal quotation marks and

23

citations omitted). “[T]he presidential communications privilege should be construed as narrowly

24
as is consistent with ensuring that the confidentiality of the President’s decisionmaking process is
25
adequately protected.” In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729, 752 (D.C. Cir. 1997)
26

Here, the redacted portions of ERF’s Exemplar 8 reflect a communication directly

27
involving former President Trump. They are therefore protected by the presidential
28
19

1

communications privilege. However, neither the Vaughn index nor the relevant portion of the

2

White declaration addresses foreseeable harm. See White Decl. ¶ 52. In the absence of a showing

3

of foreseeable harm to an interest protected by the exemption, EPA may not withhold any portions

4

of the document.

5

B.

6

EPA withheld portions of five of the documents submitted for in camera review based on

Exemption 6

7

FOIA Exemption 6, which exempts from production “personnel and medical files and similar files

8

the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 5

9

U.S.C. § 552(b)(6). Under Ninth Circuit law, “[t]he phrase ‘similar files’ has a broad, rather than
a narrow meaning,” such that “[g]overnment records containing information that applies to

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

particular individuals satisfy the threshold test of Exemption 6.” Forest Serv. Emps. for Env't

12

Ethics v. U.S. Forest Serv., 524 F.3d 1021, 1024 (9th Cir. 2008) (second alteration in original,

13

quotation marks and citations omitted).

14

If records satisfy this threshold test, the court must next consider whether disclosure of the

15

information “would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” Id. (emphasis

16

added) (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6)). “[T]o determine whether a record is properly withheld,

17

[courts] must balance the privacy interest protected by the exemptions against the public interest in

18

government openness that would be served by disclosure.” Lahr, 569 F.3d at 973. “Once the

19

government has identified a cognizable privacy interest, ‘the only relevant public interest in the

20

FOIA balancing analysis is the extent to which disclosure of the information sought would shed

21

light on an agency’s performance of its statutory duties or otherwise let citizens know what their

22

government is up to.’” Id. (emphasis in original) (quoting Bibles v. Or. Natural Desert Ass’n, 519

23

U.S. 355, 355-56 (1997)). “In other words, information about private citizens that is accumulated

24

in various governmental files but that reveals little or nothing about an agency’s own conduct is

25

not the type of information to which FOIA permits access.” Forest Serv. Emps., 524 F.3d at 1025

26

(quotation marks and citations omitted).

27
28

•

Exemplar 13 is an email chain dated March 26, 2018 about how to respond to “a media
inquiry from the Wall Street Journal asking for comment on the former Administrator’s
20

1

travel records.” Vaughn Index 1055. EPA redacted the Wall Street Journal reporter’s

2

phone numbers under Exemption 6, although it did not redact the reporter’s name and

3

email address. According to EPA, “Plaintiff has indicated that it intends to use the

4

phone numbers to contact the individual if released,” and “[t]he reporter has a

5

significant personal privacy interest in preventing the harassment that will occur in the

6

form of burdensome, unsolicited phone calls that will result from disclosure of the

7

phone numbers.” Id. at 1055-56. White also states that EPA withheld the phone

8

numbers “[b]ecause uninvited contact by phone is far more invasive than by email.”

9

White Decl. ¶ 54. Here, the reporter affirmatively contacted EPA in a professional
context—a request for EPA’s position on a particular issue related to former

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Administrator Pruitt. EPA has already disclosed the reporter’s name, news

12

organization, and email address in the same email chain. Given this context, the court

13

sees no meaningful difference between the reporter’s email address and phone

14

numbers. Therefore, EPA has not established that releasing the phone numbers is a

15

“clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”

16

•

Exemplar 19 is an email chain consisting of a resignation email from an EPA employee

17

to an unspecified number of other EPA employees, and a second email forwarding the

18

resignation email to another EPA employee. Vaughn Index 736. EPA redacted

19

personal details and identifying information, including “the employee’s name, personal

20

contact information, job title and location, length of employment, resignation date, the

21

reason for leaving the Agency, which, in its entirety, is personal in nature, plans after

22

resignation from the Agency, the employee’s signature, date of email, and the email

23

recipients.” Id. Having reviewed the emails in camera, the court concludes that the

24

disclosure of the redacted portions “would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of

25

personal privacy,” and that EPA’s articulation of the harm that is likely to result from

26

disclosing the personal information therein—that is, “embarrassment or harassment”—

27

is sufficient to justify withholding the information. The court also notes that ERF only

28

seeks “departure records for individuals that left EPA for political reasons.” Pl.’s
21

Cross-Opp’n and Reply 17. These emails do not fall into that category.

1
2

•

EPA’s Alternate Exemplar 2 is “a letter from an EPA employee providing to the
Agency their notice of resignation, resignation date, and providing a brief statement

4

identifying their reasons for leaving the agency.” Vaughn Index 745. EPA redacted

5

“personal details and identifying information, the disclosure of which would constitute

6

a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,” including “the employee’s name,

7

personal contact information, job title, division within the Agency, resignation date, the

8

employee’s signature, date of letter, and the letter recipients and their contact

9

information.” Id. ERF does not challenge the withholding of the former employee’s

10

name and contact information. Pl.’s Cross-Opp’n and Reply 16. EPA contends that

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

3

the harm that would result from disclosing the information “could subject the employee

12

to embarrassment or harassment,” but this appears to be entirely unsupported as ERF

13

does not seek production of the individual’s name. Therefore, EPA has not established

14

that releasing information other than the individual’s name and contact information is a

15

“clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” or would result in harm to the

16

interests protected by Exemption 6.

17

•

ERF’s Exemplar 9 is pages from Former Administrator Pruitt’s calendar. Vaughn

18

Index 1165. EPA redacted Pruitt’s email address, the names of two restaurants at

19

which Pruitt dined, and the email address for one of the individuals with whom he

20

dined, described as a “personal friend[]” (although it did not redact not the individual’s

21

name). According to EPA, Pruitt “has a privacy interest in information regarding

22

where he dined,” and “[d]isclosure of the dining locations shed no light on Agency

23

business.” Id. ERF challenges only EPA’s redaction of the restaurant names. [See

24

Docket No. 98-1 at ECF p. 2160.] EPA’s withholding of this information is not

25

justified, as it does not articulate any harm that would result from disclosing the

26

information.

27
28

•

ERF’s Exemplar 10 is an email chain with two emails. EPA describes the document as
follows: “one email from an EPA employee to a resigning EPA employee requesting
22

1

completion of a resigning employee checklist, and one reply email from the resigning

2

EPA employee acknowledging completion of the resigning employee checklist.”

3

Vaughn Index 721. It states “[t]he withheld portion of the email contains personal

4

details and identifying information.” Id. However, the document that EPA submitted

5

for in camera review as ERF’s Exemplar 10 does not appear to correspond to this

6

entry. Although the bates numbers of the document correspond to the Vaughn index

7

entry (EcoRights_01.31.20 Production0003-0005), the emails contain no reference to a

8

“resigning employee checklist.” Accordingly, the court is unable to evaluate EPA’s

9

withholding of this document on the basis of the claimed FOIA exemption.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

III.

CONCLUSION
In sum, the court concludes that EPA has failed to establish that it properly withheld all of

12

the exemplars submitted for in camera review, with the exceptions of Exemplar 19 and ERF

13

Exemplar 10. By no later than June 8, 2021, EPA shall produce to ERF all 28 exemplars that it

14

improperly withheld. Having provided rulings regarding EPA’s exemption and foreseeable harm

15

arguments for the 30 documents submitted for in camera review, the court now orders the

16

following: using the rulings provided in this order and applying them as guidance across the

17

universe of withheld documents, EPA shall re-review each of the documents it is withholding

18

based on any claimed FOIA exemptions in light of the authority discussed above. Within 14 days

19

of the date of this order, EPA shall produce to ERF any and all documents for which it withdraws

20

its exemption claims. Within 21 days of the date of this order, EPA shall produce a revised

21

Vaughn index to ERF. EPA’s revised Vaughn index must contain individually-numbered entries,

22

and must make clear which documents EPA is continuing to withhold and the total number of

23

documents and pages that it is withholding.

24

Following production of the revised Vaughn index, the parties shall meet and confer about

25

any remaining withholdings. Based on the court’s review of the 30 exemplars, it appears likely

26

that EPA over-withheld documents responsive to ERF’s FOIA requests. Therefore, the court

27

anticipates that EPA’s re-review of the withheld documents will address all or nearly all of the

28

parties’ remaining disputes about withheld documents. However, if disputes remain after meeting
23

1

and conferring, the parties shall submit a joint letter setting forth a proposal for how the court may

2

efficiently resolve any outstanding disputes. Any such joint letter may not exceed two pages, and

3

must be filed within 21 days of the date of EPA’s production of a revised Vaughn index. If the

4

parties are unable to agree to a joint proposal, the joint letter shall describe their individual

5

proposals. The court will issue further instructions upon review of the joint letter.

6

S

ER

H

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
24

R NIA

FO

a M. R

LI

RT

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

onn
Judge D

I
______________________________________
Donna M. Ryu
United States Magistrate Judge
yu
A

10

UNIT
ED

9

Dated: June 3, 2021

ERED
O ORD
T IS S

NO

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

RT
U
O

7

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C