Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02789/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02789-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 895
Nature of Suit: Freedom of Information Act of 1974
Cause of Action: 05:552 Freedom of Information Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES INTERNAL REVENUE 

SERVICE,

Defendant.

Case No. 13-cv-02789-WHO 

ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. Nos. 46, 47

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requires federal agencies to provide records in 

the format requested by the requester if the records are readily reproducible, absent compelling 

evidence of significant interference or burden. Here, the IRS objects to a request that it produce 

nine Form 990s to plaintiff Public.Resource.org in the Modernized E-file (MeF) format even 

though there is no dispute that the nine Form 990s at issue were submitted to the IRS in the MeF 

format and that the IRS maintains them in the MeF format. The IRS asserts that its policy of 

producing Form 990s only as image files complies with the FOIA and that the $6200 cost of 

responding to the request for disclosure of nine Form 990s in the MeF format excuses it from 

complying with Public.Resource.org’s request. Based on the undisputed facts before me, I find 

that the IRS is required under the FOIA to produce to Public.Resource.org the small set of 

documents it requested in the MeF format. 

BACKGROUND

On March 11, 2013, plaintiff Public.Resource.org submitted a FOIA request to defendant 

United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS) seeking release in Modernized E-file (MeF) format 

of Form 990s for nine tax exempt organizations that had been filed electronically. The IRS 

refused to provide the requested Form 990s in the MeF format, stating that “Form 990 data in the 

MeF format do not constitute a recognizable record, but rather a continuous string of numbers that 

Case 3:13-cv-02789-WHO Document 62 Filed 01/29/15 Page 1 of 9
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

includes confidential return information. Our existing process for providing releasable copies of 

Forms 990 is to convert the MeF data into a PDF format and withhold confidential return 

information from the resulting form.” Ex. I to Complaint. The IRS explained that it did not have 

an existing process to convert the releasable portions of the Form 990s back into MeF and for 

those reasons was “unable to provide the requested records in MeF format because they are not 

readily reproducible in a form” that complies with IRS requirements to redact certain information

from released Form 990s. Id. 

 Since 1998, the IRS has used its “SEIN system” to process requests for copies of Form 

990s. Declaration of Jalynne Archibald [Docket No. 46-5], ¶ 1-3. Using SEIN, IRS staff convert 

both paper-filed Form 990s and MeF-filed Form 990s into TIF image files; follow establish 

protocols to redact exempt information; and then process the image files for release to requestors. 

Archibald Decl., ¶¶ 3-5, 12-13, 16. Using SEIN to process and release to the public Form 990s –

which under current IRS procedures can only be produced as image files in a “raw” or searchable 

“alchemy” format – costs the IRS approximately $1.63 per Form 990. Declaration of Maria D. 

Hooke [Docket No. 46-7], ¶ 6.

The IRS does not dispute that the requested Form 990s were e-filed in the MeF format and 

are currently maintained by the IRS in the MeF format. However, the IRS argues that production 

of the nine Form 990s in MeF is not “readily” or “reasonably” available because the IRS has not 

developed protocols or trained staff to be able to redact sensitive information that is exempt from 

disclosure in the MeF format. In order to comply with Public.Resource.org’s request and produce 

the nine Form 990s in MeF, the IRS asserts it would have to shift significant resources – at a cost 

of $6200 – to develop a new protocol, train its employees, and develop the technical capacity to 

produce the requested Form 990s with exempt information redacted. Declaration of Lisa 

Rosenmerkel [Docket No. 46-6] ¶¶ 9-15. The IRS argues that having to undertake these extensive 

efforts and expense demonstrate as a matter of law that production of Form 990s is not “readily 

producible” in the MeF format and not “reasonable” under FOIA.

Public.Resource.org counters that the burden on the IRS to produce the Form 990s is 

irrelevant because the IRS already maintains these documents in the exact format requested. The 

Case 3:13-cv-02789-WHO Document 62 Filed 01/29/15 Page 2 of 9
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

organization also disputes the factual assertions regarding the difficulty and expense the IRS 

would need to bear in order to comply with its discrete request for nine Form 990s in the MeF 

format. Finally, Public.Resource.org contends that production of the information in MeF format –

as opposed to production as image files through SEIN – would enhance the public’s ability to 

review and study the data contained in those Form 990s. Declaration of Carl Malamud [Docket 

No. 48], ¶¶ 19, 32-34; Declaration of Beth Simone Noveck [Docket No. 49], ¶ 6-10; Declaration 

of Scott Klein [Docket No. 50], ¶¶ 6-8. Production of the data in MeF format would allow 

Public.Resource.org and other requestors to more easily review the operations of the non-profit 

entities who submit Form 990s, but would also shed additional light on the IRS’s operations; 

specifically how the IRS treats different non-profit entities and how well the IRS complies with its 

statutory duties to release certain information and withhold other information about the Form 990 

filers. Malamud Decl. ¶ 19; Noveck Decl. ¶¶ 10-13. 

After Public.Resource.org filed suit, the IRS moved to dismiss on the ground that its 

regulations on the production of Form 990s applied instead of the FOIA. I denied the motion to 

dismiss, finding that the requirements of the FOIA applied to Public.Resource.org’s request. The 

parties cross-moved for summary judgment, and I heard argument on January 14, 2015. 

LEGAL STANDARD

The FOIA requires federal agencies to release all non-exempt agency records responsive to 

a request for production. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A). Under the E-FOIA amendments passed in 

1996, agencies are also required to “provide the record in any form or format requested by the 

person if the record is readily reproducible by the agency in that form or format.” 5 U.S.C. § 

552(a)(3)(B). Finally, “[e]ach agency shall make reasonable efforts to maintain its records in 

forms or formats that are reproducible for purposes of this section.” Id. A court should afford 

“substantial weight” “to an affidavit of an agency concerning the agency’s determination” as to 

“reproducibility under paragraph (3)(B).” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B). However, this deference “does 

not amount to a blanket exemption from judicial review of the agency’s justification for declining 

to comply with a specific format request or failing to maintain records in readily reproducible 

formats. . . .” Scudder v. CIA, 25 F. Supp. 3d 19, 39 (D.D.C. 2014).

Case 3:13-cv-02789-WHO Document 62 Filed 01/29/15 Page 3 of 9
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

The E-FOIA amendments reflect “a Congressional choice to expand, rather than narrow, 

the agencies’ obligations under FOIA and to encourage government agencies to use advancing 

computer technology . . . not only to conduct agency business and store data but also ‘to enhance 

public access’ to records.” TPS, Inc. v. United States DOD, 330 F.3d 1191, 1195-96 (9th Cir. 

2003); see also Nat’l Sec. Counselors v. CIA, 960 F. Supp. 2d 101, 202 (D.D.C. 2013) (“the 

legislative history of the E-FOIA Amendments elaborated on this purpose, observing that the 

objective of ‘promoting greater efficiency in responding to FOIA requests . . . includes using 

technology to let requesters obtain information in the form most useful to them.’” (quoting H.R. 

Rep. 104-795, at 11 (1996)). Executive Order 13642, issued on May 9, 2013, confirmed that “the 

default state of new and modernized Government information resources shall be open and 

machine readable. Government information shall be managed as an asset throughout its life cycle 

to promote interoperability and openness, and, wherever possible and legally permissible, to 

ensure that data are released to the public in ways that make the data easy to find, accessible, and 

usable.” 78 FR 28111, 28112 (2013). 

The E-FOIA amendments also recognized that the burden on an agency to comply with a 

request to produce documents in a particular electronic format is a factor to consider in 

determining whether records are “readily reproducible.” See, e.g., ELECTRONIC FREEDOM OF 

INFORMATION AMENDMENTS OF 1996, 104 H. Rpt. 795 (“An unreasonable effort would 

significantly interfere with the operations of the agency or the agency’s use of its computers.”); 

TPS, Inc., 330 F.3d at 1195 (“When an agency already creates or converts documents in a certain 

format . . . requiring that it provide documents in that format to others does not impose an 

unnecessarily harsh burden, absent specific, compelling evidence as to significant interference or 

burden.”); Scudder v. CIA, 25 F. Supp. 3d at 33 (rejecting argument that “readily reproducible”

simply means technical capability or feasibility, without any analysis of burden on an agency).

DISCUSSION

I. THE NINE FORM 990S ARE “READILY PRODUCIBLE” IN THE MEF FORMAT

As an initial matter, there is no dispute that the nine Form 990s at issue were e-filed in the 

Case 3:13-cv-02789-WHO Document 62 Filed 01/29/15 Page 4 of 9
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

MeF format and are currently maintained by the IRS in the MeF format.1 The only question is 

whether the fact that the IRS would need to spend $6200 to develop protocols and train staff to be 

able to redact exempt information from the Form 990s at issue in the MeF format before the nonexempt information is produced means those Form 990s are not “readily producible” as a matter 

of law under the FOIA.2In making that determination, I consider not only the fact that Form 990s 

are currently maintained in MeF, but also the purported burden the IRS would face if required to 

produce the requested nine Form 990s in MeF format after redacting exempt information.3 

Contrary to Public.Resource.org’s position (see Cross-Motion [Docket No. 47] at 10, the Ninth 

Circuit has indicated that “when an agency already creates or converts documents in a certain 

format . . . requiring that it provide documents in that format to others does not impose an 

unnecessarily harsh burden, absent specific, compelling evidence as to significant interference or 

burden.” TPS, Inc. v. United States DOD, 330 F.3d at 1195 (emphasis added). The agency’s 

evidence of burden, however, must be not only compelling, but also demonstrate that compliance 

with a request would imposes a significant burden or interference with the agency’s operation. Id.

The IRS argues that requiring it to comply with the request at a cost of $6200 would 

impose a significant burden and interfere with its other responsibilities. It points out that it is the 

 

1

Therefore, the cases relied on by the IRS for the proposition that an agency need not preserve 

records that have not been requested (Kissinger v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of Press, 445 

U.S. 136, 155 n.9 (1980); Kim v. United States DOI, 859 F. Supp. 2d 13, 18 (D.D.C. 2012)) and 

need only produce records that are currently within an agency’s control (United States DOJ v. Tax 

Analysts, 492 U.S. 136, 145 (1989); Jones v. FBI, 41 F.3d 238, 249 (6th Cir. 1994)) are inapposite. 

Similarly, the IRS’s cases standing for the proposition that an agency need not engage in 

“unreasonable searches” are likewise inapposite because here the IRS admits it maintains and can 

easily locate the nine requested Form 990s. But see Trentadue v. FBI, 572 F.3d 794, 797 (10th 

Cir. 2009) (FOIA cannot “be read to demand that an agency provide every nonexempt requested 

document regardless of the cost of locating it”); Nation Magazine v. United States Customs Serv., 

71 F.3d 885, 892 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (requiring agency to search through 23 years of unindexed files 

would impose an unreasonable burden on the agency); Marks v. United States, 578 F.2d 261, 263 

(9th Cir. 1978) (“all-encompassing search” of the records of every field office of the FBI not 

required; must search only where requestor reasonably describes records that an employee can 

locate with a “reasonable amount of effort.”).

2

I review the evidence of burden on the request before me, not the cost of developing software to 

routinize responses to all future requests for Form 990 data. For that reason, the declarations of 

Dwayne Ross that estimate the total cost of implementing new software are not relevant to my 

analysis.

3

 There is no dispute the various portions of the Form 990s are exempt from disclosure, including 

Schedule B donor information. See, e.g., Archibald Decl. ¶ 16.

Case 3:13-cv-02789-WHO Document 62 Filed 01/29/15 Page 5 of 9
6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

only agency still operating under a “sequestration-level” budget and has sustained significant 

reductions of staffing and the freezing of new IT initiatives because of lack of funds. See

Declaration of Adina Leach [Docket No. 46-2], ¶¶ 4-6. The wisdom of Congressional 

appropriations is not an issue before me. The fact that an agency may be under significant 

financial distress because it is underfunded does not excuse an agency’s duty to comply with the 

FOIA. There is no evidence that the general business of the IRS or even the business of the IRS 

employees tasked with responding to FOIA requests will be significantly burdened or affected by 

fulfilling Public.Resource.org’s request for production of nine Form 990s in MeF.

The IRS also says that in order to comply with Public.Resource.org’s request, it will need 

to develop new protocols and train staff, and that work would have to be done by higher level 

staff. Public.Resource.org disputes some of the assertions in the IRS declarations regarding the 

time required to redact exempt information and the level of staff needed to comply with its 

request. See, e.g., Malamud Decl. ¶ 31; Declaration of Clay Johnson [Docket No. 54], ¶¶ 16-24; 

Declaration of Tim Bray [Docket No. 55], ¶¶ 15-20; but see Second Declaration of Lisa 

Rosenmerkel [Docket No. 56-3], ¶¶ 11-37. Assuming that the IRS is correct, it has failed to make 

a compelling showing that accommodating the request to produce nine Form 990s in MeF at a cost

of $6200 – much of which is characterized by the government as “one-time expenses” to set up a 

protocol and train staff – would significantly burden or interfere with the agency’s ability to 

respond to FOIA requests or meet its other responsibilities. 

That the IRS will have to develop new protocols and train staff to respond to 

Public.Resource.org’s request does not somehow excuse its need to comply with E-FOIA. If that 

was a valid excuse, anytime there was a request for production in a format that the agency has not 

accommodated before, the agency could argue undue burden.4 To the contrary, in enacting EFOIA, Congress expressly recognized that new and changing technology could improve both 

agency FOIA compliance and public access to government information, and as such, Congress 

 

4

 The same would be true of a request for records an agency has not had to produce before. 

Numerous types of FOIA requests could force an agency to develop protocols and train employees 

on production.

Case 3:13-cv-02789-WHO Document 62 Filed 01/29/15 Page 6 of 9
7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

demanded that agencies act proactively to enhance public access to and use of government 

information. See, e.g., TPS, Inc. v. United States DOD, 330 F.3d at 1195-96; Nat’l Sec. 

Counselors v. CIA, 960 F. Supp. 2d 101, 202 (D.D.C. 2013). 

Relatedly, the IRS portrays Public.Resource.org’s request for production in the MeF 

format as “unique,” presumably to convince me that production in MeF format should not be 

required in light of its current use of the SEIN system and the burden of producing the requested 

Form 990s in MeF. However, it seems likely that Public.Resource.org’s request for production in 

MeF is “unique” because the IRS by its own admission requires requesters to use its Form 4506-A 

(“Request for Public Inspection or Copy of Exempt Organization IRS Form.”). Declaration of 

Denise Higley [Docket No. 46-3], ¶¶ 4, 8. That form offers requestors a choice of production in 

only two formats: tif files in “raw” or “alchemy.” Id. ¶ 5. The IRS cannot defeat 

Public.Resource.org’s request for disclosure of information in the MeF format by relying on its 

own prior practices that are inconsistent with the E-FOIA amendments. 

It is worth noting that the “one-time expenses” related to developing a protocol and 

training staff may well be recouped if the IRS receives and responds to other modest requests for 

Form 990s in MeF in the future. In this decision, I have confined my analysis to determining 

whether the imposition of $6200 in expenses to produce nine Form 990s would cause a significant 

burden or interference with IRS functions and have not considered (and need not consider) 

whether a broader request for more Form 990s in MeF format would unduly burden the IRS. 

However, the record demonstrates that if the IRS were to comply with additional requests for 

production of Form 990s in MeF, the costs would be significantly less than for these initial nine 

requested by Public.Resource.org.

Based on the evidence before me, requiring the IRS to respond to Public.Resource.org’s 

limited request for nine Form 990s in MeF format will not impose a significant burden on or 

interfere with the IRS’s functions. The records, therefore, are “readily producible” under 5 U.S.C. 

552(a)(3)(B) and should be produced within sixty days of the date of this Order.

Case 3:13-cv-02789-WHO Document 62 Filed 01/29/15 Page 7 of 9
8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

II. EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

Public.Resource.org makes a number of objections to the declarations submitted by the 

IRS. Plaintiff objects to various portions of the Leach Declaration, Higley Declaration, Ross 

Declaration, Archibald Declaration, Rosenmerkel Declaration, Hooke Declaration, Gillis 

Declaration, Second Ross Declaration, Second Rosenmerkel Declaration, and IRS Exhibits 101 -

107 on the ground of relevance. Cross-Motion at 17-18; Plaintiff Reply at 15. Those objections 

are OVERRULED.

Plaintiff objects to portions of the Leach Declaration, Ross Declaration, Rosenmerkel 

Declaration, Hooke Declaration, and Gillis Declaration as improper opinion. Id. at 18. Those 

objections are OVERRULED.

Plaintiff objects to portions of the Leach Declaration, Ross Declaration, Rosenmerkel 

Declaration, Hooke Declaration, and Gillis Declaration for lack of personal knowledge, lack of 

foundation, and as speculative. Id. Those objections are OVERRULED. 

The IRS objects to portions of the Malamud Declaration, Noveck Declaration, Klein 

Declaration, Berger Declaration, Taggart Declaration, Skomoroch Declaration, Johnson 

Declaration, and Bray Declaration, and attached exhibits, on relevance. IRS Reply at 23. Those 

objections are OVERRULED.

The IRS objects to portions of the Malamud Declaration, Johnson Declaration and Bray 

Declaration, and attached exhibits, for lack of personal knowledge, improper opinion and as 

speculative. Id. Those objections are OVERRULED.

The IRS objects to portions of the Noveck Declaration, and attached exhibits, as hearsay. 

Id. Those objections are OVERRULED. 

The IRS objects to portions of the Noveck Declaration, Berger Declaration, Taggart 

Declaration, Skomoroch Declaration, and Johnson Declaration as conclusory and argumentative. 

Id. at 23-24. Those objections are OVERRULED. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the IRS’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED and 

Public.Resource.org’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. The government shall 

Case 3:13-cv-02789-WHO Document 62 Filed 01/29/15 Page 8 of 9
9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

produce the requested nine form 990s in the MeF format within sixty days of the date of this 

Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 29, 2015

______________________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-02789-WHO Document 62 Filed 01/29/15 Page 9 of 9