WADELTON et al v. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Signed by Judge Ellen S. Huvelle on 4/25/13. (lcesh1)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
) Civil Action No. 13-0412 (ESH)
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
JOAN WADELTON et al.,
Plaintiffs Joan Wadelton and Truthout have filed suit pursuant to the Freedom of
Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq., the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a et seq., the
Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, and the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651,
seeking to compel the United States Department of State to produce certain documents
pertaining to Wadelton on an expedited basis. (See Complaint (“Compl.”) [ECF No. 1] at 1, 12.)
Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction simultaneously with their filing of the
complaint. For the reasons stated below, the Court will deny plaintiffs’ motion.
Wadelton joined the Foreign Service in 1980 and worked her way up to the highest rank
short of the Senior Foreign Service. (See Compl. ¶ 7.) She has served in Iraq, among other
places, and has been assigned to several prestigious posts. (See Compl. ¶¶ 9-13.) Wadelton
alleges that she has been treated unfairly by the State Department’s Bureau of Human Resources
(“BHR”) since 2000, culminating in her termination in 2011 in retaliation for her whistleblowing
activities regarding problems in the Foreign Service promotion process. (See Compl. ¶¶ 14-40;
Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (“Pl. Mot.”) [ECF No. 3] at 1.) Truthout is a
news media organization that intends to publish a story about Wadelton’s case. (See Pl. Mot. at
4). The State Department has recognized Truthout as co-requester on each of Wadelton’s FOIA
requests. (See Compl. ¶¶ 50, 57, 66, 74.)
Wadelton and Truthout have made three FOIA requests pertaining to Wadelton’s
employment as a Foreign Service officer:
(1) July 17, 2012 request for all Office of the Legal Advisor records created about
Wadelton since 2002;
(2) October 1, 2012 request for all emails and other documents pertaining to Wadelton
from 2000-present maintained or created by BHR or in which a BHR employee or
contractor was a sender or recipient; and
(3) October 1, 2012 request for all emails or other documents pertaining to Wadelton
from 2004-present maintained or created by the Under Secretary of Management
(“USM”) or in which a USM employee or contractor was a sender or recipient.
(See id. ¶¶ 47, 54, 61.) In response to this third request, the State Department informed plaintiffs
that it has identified eighteen responsive records and will release eight in full, withhold six in
full, and coordinate with other offices regarding the remaining four records. (See id. ¶ 63.) On
February 4, 2013, plaintiffs requested expedited processing of all three requests. (See id. ¶ 64.)
On February 14, 2013, plaintiffs appealed the State Department’s withholdings and requested
expedited processing of the appeal. (See id. ¶ 65.) On March 22, 2013, the State Department
denied the request for expedited processing. (See id. ¶ 72.) Plaintiffs filed suit and moved for a
preliminary injunction to force the State Department to process all three FOIA/PA requests and
the appeal in expedited fashion.
In considering a plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction, the Court must weigh
four factors: “(1) whether the plaintiff has a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether the
plaintiff would suffer irreparable injury were an injunction not granted; (3) whether an injunction
would substantially injure other interested parties; and (4) whether the grant of an injunction
would further the public interest.” Al-Fayed v. Cent. Intelligence Agency, 254 F.3d 300, 303
(D.C. Cir. 2001).
“In deciding whether to grant an injunction, the district court must balance the strengths
of the requesting party’s arguments in each of the four required areas. If the arguments for one
factor are particularly strong, an injunction may issue even if the arguments in other areas are
rather weak.” CityFed Fin. Corp. v. Off. Of Thrift Supervision, 58 F.3d 738, 747 (D.C. Cir.
1995). However, the Court of Appeals requires the “moving party to demonstrate at least ‘some
injury,’” id., and “[w]hen a plaintiff has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits, there is
no need to consider the remaining factors.” Greater New Orleans Fair Hous. Action Ctr. v. U.S.
Dept. of Hous. & Urban Dev., 639 F.3d 1078, 1088 (D.C. Cir. 2011).
Applying the Four Preliminary Injunction Factors
Likelihood of Success on the Merits
With respect to the first and most important factor in this case, FOIA directs agencies to
provide expedited processing when a requestor demonstrates “compelling need.” 5 U.S.C. §
552(a)(6)(E)(i)(II). FOIA defines “compelling need,” in relevant part, as meaning “with respect
to a request made by a person primarily engaged in disseminating information, urgency to inform
the public concerning actual or alleged Federal Government activity.” Id. § 552(a)(6)(E)(v). A
district court reviews an agency’s denial of expedition under the de novo standard, and does not
defer to agency determinations of “compelling need.” See Al-Fayed, 254 F.3d at 307, 308. 1 The
requestor bears the burden of proof. See id. at 305 n.4.
The State Department does not contest that Truthout is “primarily engaged in
disseminating information” or that the subject of the records concerns “actual or alleged Federal
Government activity.” The only disputed issue, therefore, is plaintiffs’ claim of urgency. The
Court of Appeals has held that
in determining whether requestors have demonstrated “urgency to inform,” and
hence “compelling need,” courts must consider at least three factors: (1) whether
the request concerns a matter of current exigency to the American public; (2)
whether the consequences of delaying a response would compromise a significant
recognized interest; and (3) whether the request concerns federal government
activity. The legislative history also indicates that “[t]he credibility of a
requestor” is a relevant consideration.
Al-Fayed, 254 F.3d at 310 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Plaintiffs – using the language of the State Department’s regulations, rather than the
Court of Appeals’ standard – argue that “[t]he information responsive to these requests definitely
has a particular value that will be lost if not disseminated quickly.” (Pl. Mot. at 4.) They base
this assertion on four facts: (1) Wadelton’s story is “the subject of a widely-read series of articles
written by veteran international affairs blogger Patricia Kushlis”; (2) Wadelton’s allegations
The Court of Appeals, however, noted that FOIA gives agencies “latitude to expand the criteria
for expedited access” beyond cases of “compelling need,” and such regulations would be entitled
to deference. Al-Fayed, 254 F.3d at 307 n.7 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
However, the State Department’s relevant regulations essentially mirror FOIA: “The information
is urgently needed by an individual primarily engaged in disseminating information in order to
inform the public concerning actual or alleged Federal Government activity.” 22 C.F.R. §
171.12(b)(2). The regulations also provide fuller definitions of the relevant terms, for example
defining “urgently needed” as follows: “The information has a particular value that will be lost if
not disseminated quickly. Ordinarily this means a breaking news story of general public interest.
Information of historical interest only, or information sought for litigation or commercial
activities would not qualify, nor would a news media publication or broadcast deadline unrelated
to the breaking nature of the story.” Id. (emphasis added). Therefore, the Court need not defer
to the State Department’s definition of “compelling need,” since it finds it to be consistent with
the case law and with the Circuit Court’s interpretation of the statute.
gave rise to a 2010 investigation by the State Office of the Inspector General (“OIG”); (3) there
is an ongoing investigation by the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) into Wadelton’s
allegations; and (4) Truthout “intends to publish ‘an in-depth story on Ms. Wadelton’s case and
its place in the greater picture of State Department bureaucracy.’” (Pl. Mot. at 4.)
None of these facts support a finding that there is an “urgency to inform.” That articles
on this topic appear on a specialized blog dedicated to the Foreign Service and are read by
“several thousand people” (Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary
Injunction (“Def. Opp.”) [ECF No. 7] at 11), does not demonstrate that the information is a
“matter of a current exigency to the American public.” Al-Fayed, 254 F.3d at 310 (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). This issue may be of concern to the Foreign Service
community, but that does not mean that it is “a breaking news story of general public interest.”
22 C.F.R. § 171.12(b)(2). Nor does Truthout’s intent to publish a story about Wadelton’s case
demonstrate that the topic is of general public interest, or that “delaying a response would
compromise a significant recognized interest.” Id. The fact that OIG conducted an investigation
in 2010 certainly does not give rise to any sense of urgency. See Tripp v. Dep’t of Def., 193 F.
Supp. 2d 229, 242 (D.D.C. 2002) (events at issue took place over three years ago and no
breaking news story on the topic). Finally, an ongoing GAO investigation indicates that
someone is concerned about this topic, but the GAO does many hundreds of investigations each
year, many on arcane aspects of the functioning of the federal government that could hardly be
said to be of great interest to the American public. As the Court of Appeals noted in Al-Fayed,
“[a]lthough these topics may continue to be newsworthy, none of the events at issue is the
subject of a currently unfolding story.” Al-Fayed, 254 F.3d at 310.
By way of contrast, courts have found a “compelling need” to exist when the subject
matter of the request was central to a pressing issue of the day, such as public debate over the
renewal of the USA PATRIOT Act, see Amer. Civil Liberties Union v. Dep’t of Justice, 321 F.
Supp. 2d 24, 29 (D.D.C. 2004); a breaking news story about domestic surveillance of anti-war
protesters, see Am. Civil Liberties Union of N. Cal. v. United States Dep’t of Def. (“ACLU-NC v.
DOD”), No. C 06-1698, 2006 WL 1469418, at *6 (N.D. Cal. May 25, 2006); and an active
debate over the reauthorization of certain Voting Rights Act provisions. See Leadership
Conference on Civil Rights v. Gonzales, 404 F. Supp. 2d 246, 260 (D.D.C. 2005). The
controversy that Wadelton suggests exists over the Foreign Service promotion process bears no
resemblance to these matters of genuine widespread public concern.
While this motion was pending, plaintiffs supplemented the record with an article that
recently appeared on The Atlantic magazine’s website, but the submission merely highlights the
contrast between this case and those in which “compelling need” has been found. (See Notice of
Filing of Additional Exhibit [ECF No. 9] (attaching D.B. Grady, The State Department Need a
Watchdog – Now, Not Later, Atlantic, Apr. 23, 2013,
http://www.theatlantic.com/nationa/archive/2013/04/the-state-department-needs-a-watchdognow-not-later/275198).) In those cases, plaintiffs successfully demonstrated the existence of
widespread media interest by citing nearly one thousand hits in the Nexis database for relevant
articles during the previous ninety days, see Gerstein v. Cent. Intelligence Agency, No. C 064643, 2006 WL 3462658, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2006), or cited numerous articles and
reports, including many in mainstream news sources such as the New York Times, the
Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and/or the San Francisco Chronicle. See ACLU-NC v.
DOD, 2006 WL 1469418, at *1-2; Amer. Civil Liberties Union of N. Cal. v. Dep’t of Justice, No.
C 04-4447, 2005 WL 588354, at *5-7 (N.D. Cal Mar. 11, 2005). Plaintiffs’ submission of one
article, a series of posts on a specialized blog, and plaintiff Truthout’s representation that it
“intends” to publish a story do not come close to demonstrating a comparable level of media
In sum, the Court concludes that plaintiffs are not likely to succeed on the merits of their
claim to expedited processing. Therefore, there is no need for the Court to consider the
remaining factors. However, even if these were to be considered, they would not favor plaintiffs.
Irreparable Injury to Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs’ arguments regarding the irreparable injury prong are essentially the same as
their arguments for compelling need. They argue that there is a “public discussion taking place
now” and a citizen has the “right to engage in the public debate at the time of the public debate.”
(Pl. Mot. at 5, 6) (emphasis in the original). For the reasons articulated above, the Court does not
find that there is a robust public discussion taking place on this topic at this time, such that
plaintiffs would be harmed by receiving the information they seek at a later date.
Lack of Injury to the State Department
Plaintiffs suggest that their requests should not cause any hardship to the State
Department. State has not made any representations in this regard, but the Court is well aware
that many FOIA requesters are standing in line waiting for the agency to fulfill their obligations
under FOIA 2 and sequestration will undoubtedly only diminish the agency’s ability to respond in
the future to FOIA requests in timely fashion.
For fiscal year 2012, the State Department (including OIG) had 8,611 FOIA requests pending at
the outset; received 18,521 new requests; processed 15,343 requests; and ended with 11,789
requests still pending. See U.S. Department of State Freedom of Information Act Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2012, at 10, http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/205272.pdf.
Plaintiffs argue that a preliminary injunction will be in the public interest, based on little
more than the core purpose of FOIA being to “allow the public to be informed about ‘what their
government is up to’” – in this case, with respect to the Foreign Service promotion process. (Pl.
Mot. at 6 (quoting Dep’t of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749,
772-73 (1989)).) This explanation does nothing to distinguish plaintiffs’ FOIA request from any
other FOIA request. Therefore, the Court finds that plaintiffs fail to satisfy the public interest
For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that plaintiffs are not entitled to a
preliminary injunction and it will therefore deny plaintiffs’ motion. A separate Order
accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE
United States District Judge
Date: April 25, 2013
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?