Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-akd-3_14-cv-00199/USCOURTS-akd-3_14-cv-00199-1/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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

PEBBLE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, )

) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

) 

vs. ) 

)

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL )

PROTECTION AGENCY, )

) No. 3:14-cv-0199-HRH

 Defendant. ) 

__________________________________________) 

O R D E R

Motion for Miscellaneous Relief

Defendant moves for summary judgment that it properly withheld documents in

response to plaintiff’s FOIA request pursuant to FOIA Exemption 5 and for an order that

it properly asserted the deliberative process privilege in response to plaintiff’s discovery

request in Case No. 3:14-cv-0171-HRH.1 This motion is opposed.2 Oral argument was

requested3 but is not deemed necessary. 

1Docket No. 61. 

2Docket No. 67. 

3Docket No. 70. 

-1-

Case 3:14-cv-00199-HRH Document 71 Filed 01/12/16 Page 1 of 13
Background

Plaintiff is the Pebble Limited Partnership. Defendant is the United States

Environmental Protection Agency. 

In the -171 case, plaintiff alleged the defendants formed three advisory committees

to assist the EPA “in developing and implementing an unprecedented plan to assert EPA’s

purported authority under Section 404(c) of the federal Clean Water Act ... in a mannerthat

will effectively preclude [p]laintiff from exercising its right through the normal permit

process to extract minerals from the Pebble Mine deposit in Southwest Alaska.”4 Plaintiff

alleged that these three committees were formed in violation of the Federal Advisory

Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 1-16. In response to plaintiff’s request for

production, the defendants produced 118 documents in redacted form, claiming a

deliberative process privilege as to some of the documents. Plaintiff contends that the

defendants should have produced the documents in unredacted form. 

The instant action is brought pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA),

5 U.S.C. § 552. In its January 22, 2014 FOIA request, plaintiff sought information having

to do with its plans to develop the Pebble Deposit. Plaintiff alleges that defendant

improperly withheld documents pursuant to FOIA Exemption 5, the deliberative process

4

First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief at 2, ¶ 3, Docket

No. 95, Case No. 3:14-cv-0171-HRH. 

-2-

Case 3:14-cv-00199-HRH Document 71 Filed 01/12/16 Page 2 of 13
exemption. Defendant contends that it properly asserted the deliberative process

exemption. 

In order to resolve the deliberative process issues in both the instant case and the 

-171 case, the court ordered defendant to 

submit ... for in camera review, in both redacted and

unredacted form, the 118 documents referenced in Appendix

A of plaintiff’s request for production in Pebble Ltd. P’ship v.

EPA, No. 3:14-cv-00171, as well as a random sample of 50% of

the documents listed in defendant’s Vaughn index[5] as being

withheld in full.[6]

On September 16, 2015, defendant made a discretionary release of documents and

portions of documents that it had previously withheld. Also on September 16, 2015,

defendant submitted documents for the court’s in camera review. Because of defendant’s

discretionary release, of the 118 Appendix A documents (the FACA documents), defendant

submitted only 28 documents for in camera review. As for the Vaughn index documents

(the FOIA documents), defendant selected 65 of the 130 documents withheld in full but

then submitted only 40 of those 65 documents for in camera review because of its

discretionary release. 

5Defendant’s “Vaughn index include[d] 247 documents, 130 of which were withheld

in full and 117 or 118 [which] were redacted.” Order re Motion for Summary Judgment;

Partial Disposition at 5, Docket No. 53. 

6Order re In Camera Review of Documents at 1, Docket No. 56 (footnote omitted). 

-3-

Case 3:14-cv-00199-HRH Document 71 Filed 01/12/16 Page 3 of 13
Defendant now moves for summary judgment that it properly asserted the

deliberative process exemption in response to plaintiff’s January 2014 FOIA request and

for an order that it properly asserted the deliberative process privilege as to the 28 FACA

documents. 

Discussion

The FOIA Documents

“Exemption5permitsnondisclosure of‘inter-agency orintra-agency memorandums

[sic] or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in

litigation with the agency.’” Carter v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, 307 F.3d 1084, 1088 (9th Cir.

2002) (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5)). “This provision shields ‘those documents, and only

those documents, normally privileged in the civil discovery context.’” Id. (quoting NLRB

v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 149 (1975)). “Accordingly, it includes a ‘deliberative

process’ privilege.” Id. at 1088-89 (quoting Dep’t of Interior v. Klamath Water Users

Protective Assoc., 532 U.S. 1, 8 (2001)). “The purpose of this privilege is ‘to allow agencies

freely to explore possibilities, engage in internal debates, or play devil’s advocate without

fear of public scrutiny.’” Id. at 1089 (quoting Assembly of State of Cal. v. U.S. Dept’ of

Commerce, 968 F.2d 916, 920 (9th Cir. 1992)). 

“To qualify for exemption 5 under the ‘deliberative process’ privilege, a document

must be both (1) ‘predecisional’ or ‘antecedent to the adoption of agency policy’ and (2)

-4-

Case 3:14-cv-00199-HRH Document 71 Filed 01/12/16 Page 4 of 13
‘deliberative,’ meaning ‘it must actually be related to the process by which policies are

formulated.’” Nat’l Wildlife Federation v. U.S. Forest Service, 861 F.2d 1114, 1117 (9th Cir.

1988) (quoting Jordan v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 591 F.2d 753, 774 (D.C. Cir. 1978)). 

“These twin requirements recognize that the underlying purpose of this privilege is to

‘protect[] the consultative functions of government by maintaining the confidentiality of

advisory opinions, recommendations, and deliberations comprising part of a process by

which governmental decisions and policies are formulated.’” Id. (quoting Jordan, 591 F.2d

at 772). 

Defendant bears the burden of proving that it properly asserted the deliberative

process privilege. Yonemoto v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 686 F.3d 681, 688 (9th Cir. 2012). 

FOIA exemptions are to be “narrowly construed with doubts resolved in favor of

disclosure.” Church of Scientology Int’l v. U.S. I.R.S., 995 F.2d 916, 919 (9th Cir. 1993).

“‘Representative sampling is an appropriate procedure to test an agency’s FOIA

exemption claims when a large number of documents are involved.’” Lardner v. F.B.I., 852

F. Supp. 2d 127, 137 (D.D.C. 2012) (quoting Bonner v. Dep’t of State, 928 F.2d 1148, 1151

(D.C. Cir. 1991)). “If the sample is well-chosen, a court can, with some confidence,

‘extrapolate its conclusions from the representative sample to the larger group of withheld

materials.’” Id. (quoting Bonner, 928 F.2d at 1151). 

-5-

Case 3:14-cv-00199-HRH Document 71 Filed 01/12/16 Page 5 of 13
As an initial matter,plaintiff argues that defendant submitted an invalid sample and

that this invalid sample confirms that defendant has improperly withheld documents. 

Defendant represented that there were 130 documents withheld in full, but rather than

producing 65 documents for in camera review, it only produced 40 documents7because it

made a discretionary release of the 25 other documents. Plaintiff argues that defendant

“cherry-picked” its sample to remove documents that it knew were not covered by the

privilege. Plaintiff argues that defendant’s discretionary release “indicates that the sample

is not an accurate illustration of the whole.” Lardner, 852 F. Supp. 2d at 137. Plaintiff

insists that the fact that defendant released 38% of its original sample indicates that

defendant was improperly withholding documents.

Not only did defendant not submit a random sample of 50% of the documents that

it had withheld in full, of the 40 documents defendant submitted for in camera review, 11

of them were released in redacted form as part of defendant’s discretionary release. That

means that defendant submitted only 29 documents that have been withheld in full as its

sample. If out of the 65 documents that defendant selected for its sample of documents

withheld in full, it “erred” as to 36 documents8(i.e., 36 of the documents should have or

7Plaintiff uses the number 37 but defendant has submitted 40 FOIA documents for

in camera review. 

8

25 documents were deleted from the sample of 65 plus 11 of the 40 documents that

defendant submitted for in camera review were also released in part. 

-6-

Case 3:14-cv-00199-HRH Document 71 Filed 01/12/16 Page 6 of 13
could have been released in full or in part), that is an “error rate” of 55%. See Bonner, 928

F.2d at 1154 n.13 (“To determine the error rate, the court would consider the unjustified

withholdings compared to the total withholdings from all 63 documents”). Courts have

found a 25% errorrate to be “unacceptably high” and have required, in such cases, that the

agency reevaluate all of its withheld documents to determine whetherthey were properly

withheld or properly redacted. Meeropol v. Meese, 790 F.2d 942, 959-960 (D.D.C. 1986). 

Defendant contends, however, that no negative inference should be drawn from its

discretionary release. Defendant argues that its discretionary release does not call into

question its assertions of the privilege. Defendant contends that it decided to release

deliberative material to plaintiff in order to narrow the issues in the FACA case.9

Defendant contends that the court should not focus on the material that it released, but

rather should only focus on the 40 FOIA documents it has submitted for in camera review

as those are the documents that it continues to withhold in full or in part. 

But even if the court were to only focus on the 40 FOIA documents that defendant

submitted, it would still conclude that defendant improperly withheld documents in full. 

As set out above, defendant released 11 of the 40 documents it submitted for in camera

review in redacted form in its discretionary release. The redacted forms of these 11

9As plaintiffpoints out, many of the documents that defendant released should have

been released to begin with because the portions that defendant released were not

deliberative. 

-7-

Case 3:14-cv-00199-HRH Document 71 Filed 01/12/16 Page 7 of 13
documents should have been released to begin with because “the agency must disclose

‘[a]ny reasonably segregable portion of a record ... after deletion of the [exempt] portions.’” 

Pacific Fisheries, Inc. v. U.S., 539 F.3d 1143, 1148 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)). 

As for the remaining 29 documents, defendant submitted redacted and unredacted forms

of 22 of these documents, even though defendant supposedly withheld these documents

in full. Although defendant seems to be suggesting that it is asserting the deliberative

process privilege to the factual information itself in these documents, that is plainly not the

case. On the documents themselves, defendant has indicated what parts of the documents

it is asserting the privilege for and for 22 of the 29 documents, defendant has indicated that

only part of the document or an attachment to the document is subject to the privilege. In

other words, defendant has not asserted the privilege as to the entire document, which

means that defendant could have released redacted forms of these 22 documents in

response to plaintiff’s January 2014 FOIA request. 

Based on its in camera review of the FOIA documents, the court concludes that

defendant has properly asserted the deliberative process exemption as to the redacted

portions of the FOIA documents that it is claiming are exempt as well as to those few FOIA

documents for which defendant has asserted the privilege as to the entire document. The

FOIA documents are primarily drafts of the Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment or portions

of the Assessment and internal emails and attachments. “Draft documents subject to

-8-

Case 3:14-cv-00199-HRH Document 71 Filed 01/12/16 Page 8 of 13
revision or containing proposed changes fall well within the deliberative process

privilege.” Kortlander v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 816 F. Supp. 2d 1001, 1012 (D. Mont.

2011). Internal emails that contain substantive discussions would also fall within the

deliberative process privilege. The problem here is not that the redacted parts of the

documents are not pre-decisional and deliberative. Theproblemis thatdefendant withheld

documents in full that it should have released in redacted form. It is thus reasonable for

the court to assume that defendant has improperly withheld other non-sample documents

in full. Plaintiff has the redacted version of 11 documents and is entitled to the redacted

version of the other 22 documents. And, defendant must reevaluate the non-sample

documents it withheld in full pursuant to FOIA Exemption 5 and release those documents

that are not deliberative or those that can be released in redacted form. 

The FACA documents

The court must first determine whether defendant properly withheld the 28

documents pursuant to the deliberative process privilege. If these are in fact deliberative

materials, then plaintiff may obtain them if its “need for accurate fact-finding override[s]

the government’s interest in non-disclosure.” F.T.C. v. Warner Communications Inc., 742

F.2d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 1984). 

Among the factors to be considered in making this determination are: 1) the relevance of the evidence; 2) the availability of

other evidence; 3) the government’s role in the litigation; and

4) the extent to which disclosure would hinder frank and

-9-

Case 3:14-cv-00199-HRH Document 71 Filed 01/12/16 Page 9 of 13
independent discussion regarding contemplated policies and

decisions. 

Id.

Plaintiff argues that defendant has improperly asserted the deliberative process

privilege as to the FACA documents as evidenced by the documents that defendant has

released, many of which plaintiff contends were not deliberative. Here, the court’s focus

is on the documents that defendant has submitted for in camera review. The court

contemplatedthatdefendantmight produce some of the 118 documents without redactions

and indicated that these documents would then “obviously drop out of the review

process.”10 

As forthe 28 documents, they are pre-decisional and deliberative as they are emails

that contain substantive discussions about what will be included in the Bristol Bay

Watershed Assessment. Plaintiff howeveris not entitled to obtain thesedocuments,largely

because they are not relevant to plaintiff’s FACA claims. In order to prevail on its FACA

claims, plaintiff must prove that defendant “utilized” or “established” an advisory

committee that was composed of persons outside of the EPA. Approximately one-third

of the FACA documents that defendant has submitted are internal EPA emails that were

not sent to outside persons nor do the emails make any reference to persons outside of the

EPA. These documents have no relevancy to plaintiff’s FACA claims. As for the other 2/3

10Order re Motion for Summary Judgment; Partial Disposition at 6, Docket No. 53. 

-10-

Case 3:14-cv-00199-HRH Document 71 Filed 01/12/16 Page 10 of 13
of the documents, there are only two emails that mention outside groups (other than

contractors who were being paid to work on the Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment), but

even these two emails have nothing to do with whether defendant was improperly

establishing and utilizing advisory groups. Defendant’s internal communications may be

relevant to plaintiff’s FACA claims if those emails contain discussions about defendant

utilizing or establishing advisory committees, but the internal communications that have

been submitted for in camera review do not contain such discussions. The 28 FACA

documents have nothing to do with whether defendant utilized or established advisory

committees, which is what is at issue in plaintiff’s FACA case. 

Nor does the government’s role inthis litigation indicate that plaintiff should be able

to obtain these deliberative materials. “The only real guidance as to the application of this

factor comes from the Warner case itself. In its discussion of the government's role, the

Ninth Circuit appeared to be looking for evidence of bad faith[.]” Modesto Irrigation

District v. Gutierrez, Case No. 1:06-cv-00453 OWW DLB, 2007 WL 763370, at *12 (E.D. Cal.

March 9, 2007). Plaintiff argues that its FACA case is all about defendant’s misconduct,

namely thatdefendantimproperly formed advisory committees. Thus, plaintiff argues that

this factor should weigh in favor of disclosure because “[t]he deliberative process privilege

yields ... when government misconduct is the focus of the lawsuit. In such instances, the

government may not use the deliberative process privilege to shield its communications

-11-

Case 3:14-cv-00199-HRH Document 71 Filed 01/12/16 Page 11 of 13
from disclosure.” Tri-State Hosp. Supply Corp. v. U.S., 226 F.R.D. 118, 134-35 (D.D.C.

2005). “Simply put, when there is reason to believe that government misconduct has

occurred, the deliberative process privilege disappears.” Id. at 135. Plaintiff argues that

it has provided sufficient evidence that defendant engaged in misconduct, including the

exhibits attached to its FACA complaint, the House Oversight Report, and the Cohen

Report. Because the primary issue in the FACA case is whether defendant engaged in

misconduct, plaintiff insists that defendant should not be able to shield its communications

by asserting the deliberative process privilege. Plaintiff also argues that the deliberative

process privilege should drop away in this case because this case involves defendant’s

intent. See, e.g., Children First Foundation, Inc. v. Martinez, Case No. 1:04-cv-0927

(NPM/RFT), 2007 WL 4344915, at *7 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 10, 2007) (quoting In re Subpoena

Duces Tecum Served on the Office of the Comptroller, 145 F.3d 1422, 1424 (D.C. Cir. 1998))

(“if the party's cause of action is directed at the government’s intent in rendering its policy

decision and closely tied to the underlying litigation then the deliberative process privilege

‘evaporates’”).

The issue in plaintiff’s FACA case is whether defendant improperly formed and

utilized advisory committees, which might mean that plaintiff’s need for deliberative

materials could override defendant’s need for non-disclosure. But, here, because the 28

documents donothave anything to do with whether defendant improperly formed or used

-12-

Case 3:14-cv-00199-HRH Document 71 Filed 01/12/16 Page 12 of 13
advisory committees, there is simply no need for plaintiff to have unredacted versions of

these deliberative materials. Defendant does not have to produce unredacted copies of the

28 FACA documents. 

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s motion for a hearing11

 is denied. 

Defendant’s motion for miscellaneous relief12is granted in part and denied in part. 

The motion is granted as to the FACA documents. Defendant does not have to produce

unredacted copies of the 28 documents. The motion is denied as to the FOIA documents. 

Defendant is ordered to (1) reevaluate all of the documents that it withheld in full pursuant

to FOIA Exemption 5 when responding to plaintiff’s January 2014 FOIA request and (2)

report the results of the reevaluation to the court on or before February 12, 2016. If that

report does not resolve plaintiff’s January 2014 FOIA request, the court will entertain

defendant’s motion to resolve any remaining disagreement as to its FOIA compliance. As

to the FOIA documents, defendant’s motion for summary judgment remains unresolved. 

DATED at Anchorage, Alaska, this 12th day of January, 2016 

/s/ H. Russel Holland 

United States District Judge

11Docket No. 70. 

12Docket No. 61. 

-13-

Case 3:14-cv-00199-HRH Document 71 Filed 01/12/16 Page 13 of 13