CENTER TO ADVANCE SECURITY IN AMERICA v. UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: For the reasons contained herein, upon consideration of USAID's Consent Motion to Stay, Dkt. 6 , it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that this matter be STAYED pending further order of the court; and it is further ORDERED that the Initial Status Conference currently set for March 12, 2025, is hereby VACATED; and it is further ORDERED that the parties file a joint status report on or before May 2, 2025, to update the Court on the status of USAID's FOIA operations and proposed next steps in this case. See document for details. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 3/11/2025. (lcrdm2) (Main Document 7 replaced on 3/11/2025) (zglw). (Main Document 7 replaced on 3/11/2025) (zglw).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CENTER TO ADVANCE SECURITY IN
AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 24-3505 (RDM)

UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) is “designed ‘to pierce the veil of
administrative secrecy and to open agency action to the light of public scrutiny.’” U.S. Dep’t of
State v. Ray, 502 U.S. 164 (1991) (quoting Dep’t of Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 361
(1976)). Consistent with that purpose, FOIA requires expedition. Absent unusual or
extraordinary circumstances, it requires agencies to “determine within 20 days . . . after receipt
of [a FOIA] request whether to comply with the request,” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i), to resolve
an administrative appeal within 20 days, id. § 552(a)(6)(A)(ii), and to “make the [requested]
records promptly available” to the requester, id. §§ 552(a)(3)(A), 552(a)(6)(C). It permits a
disappointed FOIA requester to bring suit without waiting for an administrative decision, if the
agency fails to comply with statutory deadlines. Id. § 552(a)(6)(C). And it shortens the time that
the government normally has to respond to a complaint filed in federal district court to 30 days.
Id. § 552(a)(4)(C). In all of these ways, FOIA advances the “statutory goals [of] efficient,
prompt, and full disclosure of information.” August v. FBI, 328 F.3d 697, 699 (D.C. Cir. 2003)

(emphasis omitted) (quoting Sen. of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
823 F.2d 574, 580 (D.C. Cir. 1987)).
Notwithstanding this statutory focus on expedition, Defendant U.S. Agency for
International Development (“USAID”) asks the Court to stay this case and to vacate the initial
status hearing. Dkt. 6. According to USAID, this extraordinary relief is necessary “due to
USAID’s recent announcement about staffing.” Dkt. 6 at 1. That announcement, which is
posted on USAID’s website, reads as follows:
As of 11:59 p.m. EST on Sunday, February 23, 2025, all USAID direct hire
personnel, with the exception of designated personnel responsible for missioncritical functions, core leadership and/or specially designated programs, will be
placed on administrative leave globally.
Concurrently, USAID is beginning to implement a Reduction-in-Force that will
affect approximately 1,600 USAID personnel with duty stations in the United
States.
Individuals that are impacted will receive specific notifications on February 23,
2025, with further instructions and information about their benefits and rights.
Designated essential personnel who are expected to continue working will be
informed by Agency leadership February 23, 2025, by 5 p.m. EST.
Dkt. 6-1 at 1–2 (Colbow Decl. ¶ 3); see also U.S. Agency for International Development,
https://www.usaid.gov/ (last visited March 11, 2025). According to Christopher Colbow,
USAID’s FOIA Public Liaison, “the number of remaining USAID personnel available to work
on Freedom of Information Act . . . matters is extremely limited.” Id. at 2 (Colbow Decl. ¶ 4).
He estimates that “USAID’s FOIA staffing has been reduced by half,” with “all but three direct
hire FOIA staff [] either [] terminated or placed on administrative leave” and “only nine
institutional support contractors” to assist them. Id. According to Colbow, that reduction in
staffing has “severely constrained” USAID’s ability to process FOIA requests. Id.

2

Although USAID cites no authority in support of its request, the D.C. Circuit has
recognized that FOIA permits exceptions to these time limits in “unusual” or “exceptional
circumstances.” Open America v. Watergate Special Prosecution Force, 547 F.2d 605, 609
(D.C. Cir. 1976) (citing 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(a)(6)(B) & (C)). As relevant here, once a FOIA case is
brought in federal district court, “the court may retain jurisdiction and allow the agency
additional time to complete its review of the records,” but only “[i]f the Government can show
exceptional circumstances exist and that the agency is exercising due diligence in responding to
the request.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C)(i). This exception provides a “safety valve” for when “the
rigid limits” imposed by the statute “prove unworkable,” and it applies “when an agency . . . is
deluged with a volume of requests for information vastly in excess of that anticipated by
Congress, when the existing resources are inadequate to deal with the volume of such requests
within the time limits [imposed by the statute], and when the agency can show that it ‘is
exercising due diligence’ in processing the requests.” Open America, 547 F.2d at 610, 617. The
safety valve is not available, however, for “delay[s] that results from a predictable agency
workload of [FOIA] requests.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C)(ii).
In the present context, the Court is skeptical that an agency can avoid its obligations
under FOIA—including the obligation to process a request in an efficient and prompt manner—
by simply implementing a reduction-in-force that “either [] terminate[s] or place[s] on
administrative leave” “all but three direct hire FOIA staff” and, more generally, by reducing the
agency’s overall FOIA staff “by half,” Dkt. 6-1 at 2 (Colbow Decl. ¶ 4). Here, moreover, the
agency does not point to any external impediments to meeting the statutory requirements, such as
a lack of funding from Congress or an unanticipated volume of requests that has overwhelmed
the FOIA office. See Open America, 547 F.2d at 610. FOIA’s demand for expedition—and,

3

indeed, more generally, FOIA’s requirement that agencies release all non-exempt, responsive
records—would be rendered meaningless if an agency could avoid these statutory obligations
through the simple expedient of dismissing its FOIA staff.
Here, however, Plaintiff Center to Advance Security in America does not object to
USAID’s request for a stay. The Court will, accordingly, grant the stay—but only because it is
unopposed. The Court cautions that this decision should not be understood to forecast how the
Court is likely to resolve an opposed request for a stay under similar circumstances or a request
by Plaintiff to lift the stay in this matter.
For these reasons, it is hereby:
ORDERED that Defendant USAID’s consent motion to stay, Dkt. 6, is GRANTED; and
it is further
ORDERED that this matter be STAYED pending further order of the court; and it is
further
ORDERED that the Initial Status Conference set for March 12, 2025, is hereby
VACATED; and it is further
ORDERED that the parties file a joint status report on or before May 2, 2025, to update
the Court on the status of USAID’s FOIA operations and proposed next steps in this case.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Randolph D. Moss
RANDOLPH D. MOSS
United States District Judge
Date: March 11, 2025

4