Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02055/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02055-1/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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

ex rel. EDMUND G. BROWN, JR.,K

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY; NATIONAL HIGHWAY

TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION;

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION;

and OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND

BUDGET,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-02055 JSW

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

FOR VAUGHN INDEX

Now before the Court is the motion filed by Plaintiff, the People of the State of

California, by and through Plaintiff Edmund G. Brown Jr., Attorney General of the State of

California (“Plaintiff”) for an order requiring Defendants, Environmental Protection Agency,

National Highway Safety Administration, Department of Transportation and Office of

Management and Budget, (“collectively “Defendants”) to provide a detailed justification for the

allegations contained in their answers and in their earlier administrative denials that the

requested documents are exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, 5

U.S.C. § 552, as amended, (“FOIA”), together with itemized indices of the documents withheld

that are the subject of this suit, indicating in detail, with respect to each document or segregable

portion thereof, the nature of the information contained in it and the justification for

Case 3:07-cv-02055-JSW Document 24 Filed 08/27/07 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

withholding it. See Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973), cert. Denied, 415 U.S.

977 (1974). 

BACKGROUND

On July 18, 2006, Plaintiff requested from all Defendants requests under FOIA for

records related to discussions, meetings and conferences related to California’s regulation of

motor vehicle carbon monoxide emission and preemption of such regulation. (See Complaint at

¶¶ 8-10.) On April 11, 2007, after exhausting its administrative remedies, Plaintiff filed this

lawsuit to enforce its rights under FOIA. The parties dispute whether Defendants have

adequately and timely complied with Plaintiff’s FOIA request. Defendants have provided

numerous responsive documents, some with redactions, and have withheld numerous

documents claiming exemption under FOIA. Defendants have, however, failed to provide a

detailed justification of the bases for the exemptions claimed, whether by index or otherwise. 

This failure has prompted the filing of the current motion. Although Defendants concede they

should but have not yet produced such an index, they contend Plaintiff’s request is premature

and overbroad.

ANALYSIS

FOIA creates a presumption in favor of disclosure of government documents. 

Department of the Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 360-61 (1976). A governmental agency

may withhold a particular document “only if the information contained in the document falls

within one of the nine statutory exemptions to the disclosure requirements set forth in [5

U.S.C.] § 552(b).” Bowen v. U.S. Food and Drug Admin., 925 F.2d 1225, 1226 (9th Cir. 1991)

(emphasis in original). The exemptions are strictly construed and when an agency refuses to

disclose any particular documents, the burden is on the agency to demonstrate that a FOIA

exemption applies. Cal-Almond, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 960 F.2d 105, 107 (9th Cir.

1992); 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B); Bowen, 925 F.2d at 1226. 

Ordinarily, the rules of discovery give each party access to the evidence upon which the

court will rely in resolving the dispute between them. Unlike ordinary civil cases, in a FOIA

case the requester generally lacks the ability to challenge the agency’s assertions of exemption. 

Case 3:07-cv-02055-JSW Document 24 Filed 08/27/07 Page 2 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

“The party requesting disclosure must rely upon his adversary’s representations as to the

material withheld, and the court is deprived of the benefit of informed advocacy to draw its

attention to the weaknesses in the withholding agency’s arguments.” Wiener v. Federal Bureau

of Investigation, 943 F.2d 972, 977 (9th Cir. 1991). This lack of knowledge and power distorts

the traditional adversary process, and skews the process in favor of the government. Vaughn,

484 F.3d at 824. “In recognition of this problem, government agencies seeking to withhold

documents requested under the FOIA have been required to supply the opposing party and the

court with a ‘Vaughn index,’ identifying each document withheld, the statutory exemption

claim, and a particularized explanation of how disclosure of the particular document would

damage the interest protected by the claimed exemption.” Id. (citations omitted). “The purpose

of the index is to ‘afford the FOIA requester a meaningful opportunity to contest, and the

district court an adequate foundation to review, the soundness of the withholding.” Wiener, 943

F.2d at 977, citing King v. Dept. of Justice, 830 F.2d 210, 218 (D.C. Cir. 1987). 

There is no dispute that a Vaughn index is necessary in this case or that the Defendant

governmental agencies should provide one. However, the parties dispute the appropriate timing

of the production of the index and its scope. With regard to the timing of the production of the

index, there is some authority for the position maintained by the Defendants in this action that

courts have only required a Vaughn index be produced at the time of the government’s filing of

its motion for summary judgment. See, e.g., Stimac v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 620 F. Supp. 212,

213 (D.C.D.C. 1985) (“the preparation of a Vaughn index would be premature before the filing

of dispositive motions”); see also Miscavige v. Internal Revenue Service, 2 F.3d 366, 369 (11th

Cir. 1993) (FOIA cases generally should be handled on motions for summary judgment and

“plaintiff’s early attempt in litigation of this kind to obtain a Vaughn Index and to take

discovery depositions is inappropriate until the government has first had the chance to provide

the court with the information necessary to make a decision on the applicable exemptions.”). 

However, considering the amount of time that has passed between the current motion

and the initial FOIA request, and the fact that the Defendants maintain they have already

produced responsive, non-exempt, documents over the interim thirteen months, the Court is

Case 3:07-cv-02055-JSW Document 24 Filed 08/27/07 Page 3 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

persuaded by authority to the contrary. In light of both the passage of time since the initial

request and the purpose of the Vaughn index to educate both the requester and the Court, the

Court finds it would be unfair to allow the Defendants months to prepare their case and then

force Plaintiff to formulate its entire case within the two weeks it has to respond to the motion. 

See Providence Journal Co. v. U.S. Dept. of the Army, 769 F. Supp. 67, 69 (D. R.I. 1991)

(holding that the Stimac court and other courts allowing production of Vaughn index at the time

of the government’s filing of dispositive motions state no rule and other courts have not

followed the same procedure, citing a number of cases to the contrary); see also Wiener, 943

F.2d at 977-78 (the “purpose of the index is to afford the FOIA requester a meaningful

opportunity to contest, and the district court an adequate foundation to review, the soundness of

the withholding. The index thus functions to restore the adversary process to some extent, and

to permit more effective judicial review of the agency’s decision.”) (citations and internal

quotation marks omitted); see also Coastal States Gas Corp. v. Department of Energy, 644 F.2d

969, 972 (3d Cir. 1981) (the FOIA statute embodies a policy of expedited handling of requests

for documents). 

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for the production of a Vaughn

index. All defendants with the exception of the Department of Transportation shall produce

their Vaughn indices by no later than September 28, 2007. The Department of Transportation

shall have until October 10, 2007 to produce its index. 

With reference to the scope of the index, Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s request that

the index include “a specific claimed injury to defendant[s]” and an explanation “why the

public interest does not favor disclosure” for each document exempt from disclosure is

overbroad and not required under Ninth Circuit precedent. The defendant agencies are required

to do more than merely indicate that the withheld documents are of a type or category that are

generally excludable. Rather, the agency must describe “each document or portion thereof

withheld, and for each withholding it must discuss the consequences of disclosing the soughtafter information.” King, 830 F.2d at 224 (emphasis in original). Categorical description of

redacted material coupled with indication of anticipated consequences of disclosures is clearly

Case 3:07-cv-02055-JSW Document 24 Filed 08/27/07 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5

inadequate.” Id. “Specificity is the defining requirement of the Vaughn index.” Id. “Unless

the agency discloses ‘as much information as possible without thwarting the [claimed]

exemption’s purposes,’ the adversarial process is necessarily compromised.” Wiener, 943 F.2d

at 979, quoting King, 830 F.2d at 224. The “purpose of the index is not merely to inform the

requester of the agency’s conclusion that a particular document is exempt from disclosure under

one or more of the statutory exemptions, but to afford the requester an opportunity to

intelligently advocate release of the withheld documents and to afford the court an opportunity

to intelligently judge the contest.” Wiener, 943 F.2d at 979. The index requires the

identification of each document withheld, the statutory exemption claimed, and an explanation

of how disclosure would damage the interest protected. Schiffer v. Federal Bureau of

Investigation, 78 F.3d 1405, 1408 (9th Cir. 1996). 

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Defendants to produce a Vaughn index with sufficient

specificity to comply with clear Ninth Circuit precedent. The parties agreed to the scope of the

index at the oral argument on this motion. To the extent there is a dispute between the parties

regarding the level of specificity in the description of each claimed exemption, the Court will

address that dispute as it arises.

In addition, as discussed at the hearing on this motion, the parties shall meet and confer

to devise a briefing schedule for cross-motions for summary judgment, providing that only four

briefs are filed. The hearing on the motions shall be set for Friday, January 18, 2008 at 9:00

a.m. One party shall file its opening summary judgment motion by November 2, 2007. The

other party shall file its opposition and cross-motion by November 16, 2007. The reply and

opposition to the cross-motion shall be filed by November 30, 2007. The reply in support of the

cross-motion shall be filed by December 14, 2007. 

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:07-cv-02055-JSW Document 24 Filed 08/27/07 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

6

If the Court determines that the matter is suitable for resolution without oral argument, it

will so advise the parties in advance of the hearing date. If the parties wish to modify this

schedule, they may submit for the Court’s consideration a stipulation and proposed order

demonstrating good cause for any modification requested.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 27, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-02055-JSW Document 24 Filed 08/27/07 Page 6 of 6