Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-05-05360/USCOURTS-caDC-05-05360-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Consumer Federation of America
Appellant
United States Department of Agriculture
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued April 25, 2006 Decided June 30, 2006

No. 05-5360

CONSUMER FEDERATION OF AMERICA,

APPELLANT

v.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

APPELLEE

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 04cv01788)

Jillian M. Cutler argued the cause for appellant. With her

on the briefs was David C. Vladeck.

Mercedeh Momeni, Assistant U.S. Attorney, argued the

cause for appellee. With her on the brief were Kenneth L.

Wainstein, U.S. Attorney, and Michael J. Ryan, Assistant U.S.

Attorney. R. Craig Lawrence, Assistant U.S. Attorney, entered

an appearance.

Before: SENTELLE, HENDERSON, and GARLAND, Circuit

Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge GARLAND.

USCA Case #05-5360 Document #977782 Filed: 06/30/2006 Page 1 of 23
2

Concurring opinion filed by Circuit Judge HENDERSON.

GARLAND, Circuit Judge: The question in this case is

whether the electronic appointment calendars of six United

States Department of Agriculture (USDA) officials are “agency

records” within the meaning of the Freedom of Information Act

(FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B). The Consumer Federation of

America (CFA) seeks production of the calendars in an effort to

discover whether the officials participated in ex parte meetings

with industry representatives while a food-safety rulemaking

was pending. The district court held that the calendars are not

“agency records” and therefore not subject to production under

FOIA. We reverse that holding with respect to five of the six

calendars.

I

In February 2001, USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection

Service (FSIS) published notice of a proposed rule regulating

exposure to Listeria, a dangerous, food-borne bacterium that can

be found in ready-to-eat meat and poultry. See 66 Fed. Reg.

12,589 (Feb. 27, 2001). In June 2003, FSIS issued an interim

final rule, see 68 Fed. Reg. 34,208 (June 6, 2003), that CFA

regarded as significantly weaker than the proposed rule. CFA

suspected that the interim final rule was the result of “‘pressure

from industry representatives’” applied during ex parte meetings

with agency officials. Consumer Fed’n of Am. v. USDA, No.

04-1788, Mem. Op. at 2 (D.D.C. July 28, 2005) (quoting Pl.’s

Mot. for Summ. J. at 5).

Seeking to learn whether USDA officials had “‘met

exclusively, or nearly exclusively, with industry representatives

who favor[ed] the weakening of the original proposed rule,’” id.

(quoting Pl.’s Mot. for Summ. J. at 5-6), CFA filed a FOIA

request for “access to the public calendars” of six senior officials

USCA Case #05-5360 Document #977782 Filed: 06/30/2006 Page 2 of 23
3

1

For example, selections provided in the parties’ Joint Appendix

show that 82 of 86 entries were redacted from USDA Under Secretary

Elsa Murano’s March 2003 calendar. See J.A. 73-80, 82-89.

2

For example, while the October 31, 2002 calendars for Under

Secretary Murano and Administrator Garry McKee disclose an 8:00

a.m. meeting with Deputy Under Secretary Merle Pierson and a

representative of Tyson Foods regarding Listeria, the 8:00 a.m. entry

on Pierson’s calendar for the same date is redacted. See J.A. 55-57.

3

See Waldrop Decl., Ex. A (Apr. 25, 2005) (summarizing missing

calendar dates).

for “all meetings with non-government individuals, businesses,

trade associations and/or other organizations and the subject of

the meetings.” Letter from CFA to USDA at 1 (Aug. 18, 2004).

When USDA failed to provide a substantive response within the

statutory time period, CFA filed suit in district court to compel

production of the calendars. 

After CFA’s suit and subsequent motion for summary

judgment were filed, USDA notified the plaintiff that “FSIS

does not maintain a public calendar for any of its personnel,” but

that each of the six named officials “maintained an electronic

calendar on the FSIS computer system.” Letter from USDA to

CFA at 1 (Feb. 25, 2005). Although USDA asserted that the

electronic calendars were “personal records -- not Agency

records subject to disclosure under the FOIA,” id., it stated that

the six officials had “independently volunteered to release their

personal calendars, with appropriate redactions, for the periods

requested.” Id. at 2. USDA sent the redacted pages to CFA on

February 25, 2005. The redactions were both extensive,

blocking out the overwhelming majority of the calendar entries,1

and inconsistent.2 Moreover, hundreds of pages, including

entire months, were not produced.3

 Because USDA did not cite

any FOIA exemptions to justify the redactions, CFA argued that

USCA Case #05-5360 Document #977782 Filed: 06/30/2006 Page 3 of 23
4

4

Under Secretary Murano distributed her calendar to “Terri

Nintemann, Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Office of Public

the court should require the agency “‘to produce the remainder

of the calendars (or provide a satisfactory explanation for its

failure to produce them).’” Consumer Fed’n of Am., Mem. Op.

at 3 (quoting Pl.’s Reply Mem. at 6).

USDA cross-moved for summary judgment on March 23,

2005. In support of its motion, the agency filed affidavits from

the six officials. The six were: USDA Under Secretary for

Food Safety Elsa Murano, Deputy USDA Under Secretary for

Food Safety Merle Pierson, FSIS Administrator Garry McKee,

Deputy FSIS Administrator Linda Swacina, Acting FSIS

Administrator Barbara Masters, and Assistant FSIS

Administrator Philip Derfler. The affidavit filed by FSIS

Administrator McKee stated: 

In order to better communicate about my availability,

to prevent, among other things, double booking of

periods of time, my personal calendar was shared with

my Secretaries, my Special Assistant, and the FSIS

Senior Management Council, which consisted of the

other Assistant and Deputy Administrators for FSIS.

Calendar entries were distributed to these few

individuals and were in no way distributed widely

within USDA or FSIS.

McKee Aff. ¶ 9. The other five affidavits employed identical

language to describe how the officials’ calendars were used; the

only differences involved which other employees received the

calendars. See Murano Aff. ¶ 9; Pierson Aff. ¶ 9; Swacina Aff.

¶ 9; Masters Aff. ¶ 9; Derfler Aff. ¶ 9. Four of those calendars

had distribution lists of a length similar to that of Administrator

McKee.4

 However, the distribution list of Assistant

USCA Case #05-5360 Document #977782 Filed: 06/30/2006 Page 4 of 23
5

Affairs, Education, and Outreach, FSIS; Dani Schor, Chief of Staff,

FSIS; and the Office of the Administrator, FSIS.” Murano Aff. ¶ 9.

Deputy Under Secretary Pierson shared her calendar with a

“Confidential Assistant, [an] Executive Assistant, . . . Special

Assistants[,]” “and certain FSIS personnel such as a Deputy Assistant

Administrator, Chief of Staff, and the Office of the Administrator.”

Pierson Aff. ¶¶ 8, 9. Deputy Administrator Swacina distributed her

calendar to her “secretaries, the Assistant Administrators, FSIS, and

the Under Secretary for Food Safety.” Swacina Aff. ¶ 9. Acting

Administrator Masters distributed her calendar to her “Chief of Staff,

. . . Special Assistant, . . . Secretaries[,]” “and the FSIS Senior

Management Council, which consisted of the Assistant and Deputy

Administrators for FSIS.” Masters Aff. ¶¶ 8, 9.

5

Derfler declared that his calendar was shared only with “my

secretary and any temporary secretaries that filled in for my permanent

secretary while she was out of the office.” Derfler Aff. ¶ 9.

Administrator Derfler, the least senior of the subject USDA

officials, was considerably shorter than the others. Derfler,

alone among the subject officials, distributed his calendar only

to his secretary.5

On July 28, 2005, the district court issued an opinion

concluding that “the officials’ appointment calendars maintained

on their personal computers are not ‘agency records’ within the

meaning of the statute.” Consumer Fed’n of Am., Mem. Op. at

1-2. It therefore granted USDA’s motion for summary judgment

and dismissed CFA’s complaint. This appeal followed. 

II

FOIA grants the district court “jurisdiction to enjoin [an]

agency from withholding agency records and to order the

production of any agency records improperly withheld from the

complainant.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B). Hence, the court must

USCA Case #05-5360 Document #977782 Filed: 06/30/2006 Page 5 of 23
6

6

Regardless of whether the agency must bear the burden of

demonstrating that any requested document is not an “agency record,”

there is no dispute that it bears that burden where -- as here -- the

documents were “created by an agency employee and located within

the agency.” Gallant, 26 F.3d at 172 (internal quotation marks

omitted).

determine whether the defendant agency has “(1) ‘improperly’;

(2) ‘withheld’; (3) ‘agency records.’” Kissinger v. Reporters

Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136, 150 (1980)

(quoting 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B)). The only question at issue on

this appeal is the validity of the district court’s determination

that the USDA calendars are not “agency records.”

We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment

on this question de novo. See Students Against Genocide v.

Department of State, 257 F.3d 282, 834 (D.C. Cir. 2001). “In

the FOIA context this requires that we ascertain whether the

agency has sustained its burden of demonstrating that the

documents requested are not ‘agency records.’” Gallant v.

NLRB, 26 F.3d 168, 171 (D.C. Cir. 1994); see United States

Dep’t of Justice v. Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. 136, 142 n.3 (1989);

Grand Cent. P’ship, Inc. v. Cuomo, 166 F.3d 473, 478 (2d Cir.

1999).6

 Under FOIA, “[s]ummary judgment may be granted on

the basis of agency affidavits if they contain reasonable

specificity of detail rather than merely conclusory statements,

and if they are not called into question by contradictory evidence

in the record or by evidence of agency bad faith.” Gallant, 26

F.3d at 171 (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Although FOIA “limited access to ‘agency records,’ [it] did

not provide any definition” of the term. Forsham v. Harris, 445

U.S. 169, 178 (1980) (internal citation omitted). We must

nonetheless be careful to ensure that “[t]he term ‘agency

records’ . . . not be manipulated to avoid the basic structure of

USCA Case #05-5360 Document #977782 Filed: 06/30/2006 Page 6 of 23
7

7

See also Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. at 144-45 (holding that, for

documents to qualify as “agency records,” an agency “must either

create or obtain the requested materials,” and “must be in control of

the requested materials” in the sense that they “have come into the

agency’s possession in the legitimate conduct of its official duties”

(internal quotation marks omitted)); Burka v. United States Dep’t of

Health & Human Servs., 87 F.3d at 508, 515 (D.C. Cir. 1996)

(identifying “four factors relevant to a determination of whether an

agency exercises sufficient control,” to wit: “‘(1) the intent of the

document’s creator to retain or relinquish control over the records; (2)

the ability of the agency to use and dispose of the record as it sees fit;

(3) the extent to which agency personnel have read or relied upon the

document; and (4) the degree to which the document was integrated

into the agency’s record system or files.’” (quoting Tax Analysts v.

United States Dep’t of Justice, 845 F.2d 1060, 1069 (D.C. Cir. 1988),

aff’d, 492 U.S. 136 (1989))).

the FOIA: records are presumptively disclosable unless the

government can show that one of the enumerated exemptions

applies.” Bureau of Nat’l Affairs, Inc. v. United States Dep’t of

Justice, 742 F.2d 1484, 1494 (D.C. Cir. 1984). As the Supreme

Court has repeatedly reminded us, in enacting FOIA, “Congress

sought to open agency action to the light of public scrutiny.”

Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. at 142 (internal quotation marks

omitted); see Department of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for

Freedom of Press, 489 U.S. 749, 772 (1989); Department of Air

Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 372 (1976).

Mindful of this caution, our circuit has adopted a totality of

the circumstances test to distinguish “agency records” from

personal records. The test “focus[es] on a variety of factors

surrounding the creation, possession, control, and use of the

document by an agency.” Bureau of Nat’l Affairs, 742 F.2d at

1490.7

 There is no precedent in which we have applied that test

to facts directly paralleling those before us. This is due, at least

in part, to the technological advances of recent years.

USCA Case #05-5360 Document #977782 Filed: 06/30/2006 Page 7 of 23
8

Both USDA and CFA agree that the precedent that is most

nearly on point is Bureau of National Affairs v. United States

Department of Justice, 742 F.2d 1484 (D.C. Cir. 1984), a case

that concerns paper documents as opposed to electronically

stored and retrievable data. In that case, this court considered

(inter alia) whether either of two types of documents -- daily

agendas and desk appointment calendars -- used by thenAssistant Attorney General for Antitrust William Baxter

constituted “agency records” under FOIA. See id. at 1487,

1494-96. The desk calendars contained entries that “generally

reflect[ed] the location of a meeting or appointment, the people

expected to be present, and on occasion, the general purpose of

the meeting or appointment.” Id. at 1487 (internal quotation

marks omitted). The daily agendas similarly reflected Baxter’s

“schedule on a given day.” Id. In addition to agency business,

both the calendars and the daily agendas listed “personal

appointments wholly unrelated to the business of the Antitrust

Division.” Id. (referring to the desk calendars); see id. at 1496

(referring to both items).

Addressing the factors relevant to the totality of the

circumstances test, the court noted a number of characteristics

shared by the two types of documents. Both were created by

agency employees, and both were located within (and in that

sense, were within the possession of) the Justice Department.

See id. at 1486, 1492. With respect to control, the court

indicated that neither the daily agendas nor the desk calendars

were “placed into agency files,” id. at 1494, and that the

Department required neither their creation nor their retention.

See id. at 1494-96. 

What ultimately distinguished the two types of documents

was how they were “used within the agency.” Id. at 1495. “The

purpose of the agendas was to inform the staff of Mr. Baxter’s

availability; they facilitated the day-to-day operations of the

USCA Case #05-5360 Document #977782 Filed: 06/30/2006 Page 8 of 23
9

Antitrust Division.” Id. Consonant with that function, the

agendas were “distributed to top staff within the Antitrust

Division so that they would know [Baxter’s] schedule on a given

day.” Id. at 1487. This, Bureau of National Affairs held,

rendered the daily agendas “agency records.” Id. at 1495-96. 

In contrast to the agendas, the desk calendars “were retained

solely for the convenience of the individual official[]” in

organizing his “personal and business appointments.” Id. at

1496. Accordingly, although Baxter’s top assistants

“occasionally had access to the calendars,” id. at 1487, they

“were not distributed to other employees.” Id. at 1496

(emphasis in original). This, Bureau of National Affairs ruled,

rendered the desk calendars personal rather than “agency

records.” See id.

III

Bureau of National Affairs provides the template necessary

to decide this case and, in so doing, to distinguish between the

calendars of five of the USDA officials and that of the sixth --

Assistant FSIS Administrator Derfler. We consider the principal

factors identified in Bureau of National Affairs -- creation,

location/possession, control, and use -- below. As we explain,

use is the decisive factor here.

1. As was true of both the daily agendas and the desk

calendars in Bureau of National Affairs -- and thus insufficient

by itself to distinguish between agency and personal records --

all six USDA calendars were created by agency employees and

were located within the agency (in this case, resident on its

computer system). Like both Baxter’s agendas and his

calendars, the USDA calendars “were generated within the

agenc[y]” and “were prepared on government time, at

government expense and with government materials, including

USCA Case #05-5360 Document #977782 Filed: 06/30/2006 Page 9 of 23
10

8

In Forsham v. Harris, the Supreme Court explained that, to

constitute “records” under the Records Disposal Act, 44 U.S.C. § 3301

(a term that has the same meaning under the FRA, see 44 U.S.C. §

2901(1)), documents must be “‘made or received by an agency of the

United States Government under Federal law or in connection with the

transaction of public business’” and “‘preserved or appropriate for

preservation by that agency . . . as evidence of the . . . activities of the

Government.’” 445 U.S. 169, 183 & n.14 (1980) (quoting 44 U.S.C.

§ 3301) (emphasis omitted).

the . . . appointment calendar[]” software itself. Bureau of Nat’l

Affairs, 742 F.2d at 1494 (internal quotation marks omitted).

“In the context of these cases, . . . the question is whether the

employee’s creation of the documents can be attributed to the

agency for the purposes of FOIA.” Id. at 1495. To answer that

question, we must examine two additional factors: control and

use.

2. In support of the contention that it does not control the

requested calendars, USDA declares (without explanation) that

neither its own regulations nor the Federal Records Act (FRA),

44 U.S.C. § 2901 et seq., requires its employees to create or

retain the subject calendars. CFA disputes (with only slightly

more explanation) the latter point, asserting that the calendars

are records subject to the FRA and not disposable at an

employee’s discretion. Determining which position is correct --

that is, whether the USDA employees are in fact free to dispose

of their calendars -- is a complicated endeavor,8

 one that both

parties largely avoid.

Fortunately, we need not decide whether retention of the

calendars was wholly within the officials’ discretion. Although

compelled retention (or creation) might well establish that a

document is under USDA control, the absence of such a

requirement does not resolve the issue since federal law did not

USCA Case #05-5360 Document #977782 Filed: 06/30/2006 Page 10 of 23
11

9

The referenced statutes were the Federal Records Act, 44 U.S.C.

§ 2901 et seq., the Records Disposal Act, 44 U.S.C. § 3301 et seq.,

and the Presidential Records Act, 44 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq. See

Bureau of Nat’l Affairs, 742 F.2d at 1493.

require the preservation (or creation) of the daily agendas in

Bureau of National Affairs. See 742 F.2d at 1493-94. Indeed,

in that case, we expressly “reject[ed] the government’s

invitation to hold that the treatment of documents for disposal

and retention purposes under the various federal records

management statutes determines their status under FOIA.” Id.

at 1493.9

 Although “[t]hose statutes prescribe how federal

agencies are to create, dispose of, and otherwise manage

documents and other material,” they “cannot be used as the

divining rod for the meaning of ‘agency records’ under FOIA.”

Id.

USDA also contends that the officials’ calendars are not

agency records because they were not “integrated into” the

agency’s files. Appellee’s Br. 9. This point goes both to control

and to use (which we discuss next), and was significant in

Kissinger v. Reporters Committee. There, the Supreme Court

considered whether notes of telephone conversations that Henry

Kissinger made while serving as a Presidential Assistant in the

Office of the President (an entity not covered by FOIA) became

“agency records” when he transferred them to the State

Department (an entity covered by FOIA) upon becoming

Secretary of State. See 445 U.S. at 155-57. The Court held to

the contrary:

The papers were not in the control of the State

Department at any time. They were not generated in

the State Department. They never entered the State

Department’s files, and they were not used by the

Department for any purpose. If mere physical location

USCA Case #05-5360 Document #977782 Filed: 06/30/2006 Page 11 of 23
12

10USDA cites two exhibits to its Motion for Summary Judgment,

but neither addresses the point. See Appellee’s Br. 9 (citing “MSJ

Exhibits 2 and 3”).

of papers and materials could confer status as an

‘agency record’ Kissinger’s personal books, speeches,

and all other memorabilia stored in his office would

have been agency records subject to disclosure under

the FOIA.

Id. at 157 (emphasis added). 

It is not at all clear that the USDA calendars never entered

the agency’s “files” in the sense in which the word was used in

Kissinger. USDA cites nothing to support its claim in this

regard.10 Although the agency may be referring to technical

“records” designations that it has made under the FRA, see 44

U.S.C. § 2901, designations under that statute, as we have noted,

do not determine a document’s status under FOIA. Nor is there

any indication that the Kissinger Court used the term “files” in

a technical sense. The Court found that Kissinger’s White

House records did not become part of the State Department’s

files simply because they were “stored in his office” at the

Department, a matter of “mere physical location.” 445 U.S. at

157. As we explained in Bureau of National Affairs, Kissinger

held that “the mere physical transfer of [Kissinger’s] documents

to the State department . . . did not by itself render them ‘agency

records.’” 742 F.2d at 1489. 

The USDA calendars, by contrast, were not just “stored” in

their authors’ offices, but were accessed and updated on a daily

basis. Indeed, although not dispositive, the technological

changes in the period since Assistant Attorney General Baxter

kept his appointments in paper calendars are not without

significance. The technologically savvy USDA officials kept

USCA Case #05-5360 Document #977782 Filed: 06/30/2006 Page 12 of 23
13

11We focus on the manner in which the documents were used,

rather than on the subjective “intent of the creator of [the] document,”

because the Supreme Court has rejected reliance upon the latter. Tax

Analysts, 492 U.S. at 147; see id. at 147-48 (stating that a “mens rea

requirement is nowhere to be found in the Act [, and that] discerning

the intent of the drafters of a document may often prove an elusive

endeavor”).

12As Bureau of National Affairs noted, the case law regarding

“agency records” “cannot be compartmentalized rigidly into either a

‘control’ or a ‘use’ analysis.” 742 F.2d at 1490; see id. (stating that

“‘control’” may have “‘no precise definition and may well change as

their calendars “on the FSIS computer system,” Letter from

USDA to CFA at 1, thus necessarily subjecting them to the

control of that system’s administrators. At a minimum, this

suggests that USDA had more “control” over its officials’

calendars than the Justice Department had over Baxter’s.

In any event, even if the USDA calendars never entered

USDA’s files, that would not decide the question before us. In

Bureau of National Affairs, the court found that neither the desk

calendars nor the daily agendas were “placed into agency files.”

742 F.2d at 1494. Nonetheless, the latter were held to be

“agency records.” See id. at 1495.

3. As in Bureau of National Affairs, with creation,

possession, and control not dispositive in determining whether

the calendars are “agency records,” we must shift our attention

to the manner in which the documents were used11 within the

agency. See 742 F.2d at 1492 (“Where, as here, a document is

created by an agency employee, consideration of whether and to

what extent that employee used the document to conduct agency

business is highly relevant for determining whether that

document is an ‘agency record’ within the meaning of FOIA.”);

see also id. at 1490-91.12 Here, the calendars of the five most

USCA Case #05-5360 Document #977782 Filed: 06/30/2006 Page 13 of 23
14

relevant factors assume varying importance from case to case.’”

(quoting Crooker v. United States Parole Comm’n, 730 F.2d 1, 5 (1st

Cir.1984))). At several places in the opinion, the court suggested that

the extent to which an employee uses a document for agency business

is an indicator of the extent of agency control over the document. See

742 F.2d at 1491-93. 

13See, e.g., Pierson Calendar, Oct. 6, 2003 (J.A. 90) (containing

notation: “Elsa Murano Traveling” (capitalization altered)); Murano

Calendar, Mar. 4, 2003 (J.A. 73) (containing notation: “Merle Pierson

Traveling” (capitalization altered)).

14See, e.g., Murano Calendar, Oct. 31, 2002 (J.A. 55) (indicating

briefing by Tyson Foods representative for Murano, Pierson, and

McKee).

senior USDA officials have use characteristics that mirror those

Bureau of National Affairs found critical in determining that

Baxter’s daily agendas were “agency records.” 

First, Baxter’s agendas were used to “inform[] other staff of

Mr. Baxter’s whereabouts during the course of a business day so

that they could determine Mr. Baxter’s availability for

meetings.” 742 F.2d at 1496. Similarly, the USDA officials’

affidavits state that their calendars were used to “better

communicate about [their] availability, to prevent, among other

things, double booking of periods of time.” E.g., McKee Aff. ¶

9. Indeed, some of the redacted calendars submitted for our

review contain not only their own subjects’ schedules, but also

notations regarding the whereabouts of others, such as when

colleagues were traveling outside the office.13 And each

indicates when the subject official was scheduled to meet with

his or her colleagues, as well as (where not redacted) with

industry representatives.14

USCA Case #05-5360 Document #977782 Filed: 06/30/2006 Page 14 of 23
15

15According to its organization chart, FSIS currently has eight

assistant administrators.

Second, and consonant with their use in facilitating the

scheduling of agency business, Bureau of National Affairs

stressed that a distinguishing characteristic of Baxter’s agendas

was that they were “distributed to other employees,” rather than

“retained solely for the convenience of the individual officials.”

742 F.2d at 1496 (emphasis in original). Employing the same

word, the USDA officials declared that their calendars were

“distributed” to other agency employees. E.g., McKee Aff. ¶ 9.

Moreover, as with Baxter’s agendas, which were distributed to

“top staff within the Antitrust Division,” 742 F.2d at 1487, the

calendars of the five senior USDA officials were distributed to

top FSIS staff. Administrator McKee’s calendar, for example,

was distributed to the “Senior Management Council,” which

consisted of the “Assistant and Deputy Administrators for

FSIS,” as well as to his special assistant and secretaries. McKee

Aff. ¶ 9.15 With the exception of Assistant Administrator

Derfler’s calendar, the calendars of the other officials had

similar distribution lists. See supra notes 4 & 5.

At oral argument, counsel for USDA contended, for the first

time, that the affidavits’ use of the word “distributed” was

misleading because the USDA officials’ calendars were not

printed and physically distributed to the listed recipients, but

instead simply made available on the recipients’ computers. See

Oral Arg. Tape at 12:00. Although this fact does not appear in

the record below, we do not doubt its truthfulness. However,

there does not appear to be any practical difference between the

former practice of distributing information in printed form on

hard copies and the modern practice of allowing others access

through network computers. In any meaningful sense, the

USDA calendars were electronically “distributed” to the listed

USCA Case #05-5360 Document #977782 Filed: 06/30/2006 Page 15 of 23
16

16Bureau of National Affairs did draw a distinction between the

physical distribution of Baxter’s agendas on the one hand, and the

“occasional[] . . . access” that Baxter’s immediate staff had to his desk

calendars on the other. 742 F.2d at 1487; see id. at 1495-96. That

distinction makes sense: the fact that access to Baxter’s desk

calendars required obtaining entry into Baxter’s or his secretary’s

personal areas (the desks on which the calendars sat), and that such

access was only episodic, reinforced the conclusion that Baxter

retained tight control over the calendars and that their principal use

was personal. Allowing others to have routine computer access to a

calendar, however, is more like distributing hard copies than it is like

permitting occasional glances at a document on a desk. In allowing

computer access, the official surrenders personal control over the

document and indicates that it will be used by others to plan their own

workdays.

recipients and were used by them to schedule agency meetings

and prevent conflicts.16

Our focus on use helps to ensure that a document subject to

disclosure under FOIA is an “‘agency record’ and not an

employee’s record that happens to be located physically within

an agency.” Bureau of Nat’l Affairs, 742 F.2d at 1493 (citing

Kissinger, 445 U.S. at 157). Unlike Secretary Kissinger’s

documents, which were merely “stored in his office” and “not

used by the Department for any purpose,” 445 U.S. at 157, the

USDA calendars were continually updated and used to conduct

agency business. And unlike “a personal diary containing an

individual’s private reflections on his or her work -- but which

the individual does not rely upon to perform his or her duties,”

742 F.2d at 1494, the five USDA calendars were in fact relied

upon by both their authors and their authors’ colleagues to

“facilitate[] the day-to-day operations of the” FSIS, id. at 1495.

Cf. Gallant, 26 F.3d at 171 (holding that letters sought in a

FOIA request were personal rather than “agency records”

because they were created for a “purely personal objective” and

USCA Case #05-5360 Document #977782 Filed: 06/30/2006 Page 16 of 23
17

neither the author nor other employees “reli[ed] on the

correspondence to carry out the business of the agency”).

USDA protests that, because the calendars contain personal

as well as business entries, they cannot be considered “agency

records.” There is no doubt that “the presence of such

information may be relevant in determining” the use of a

document. Bureau of Nat’l Affairs, 742 F.2d at 1496. But as we

said in Bureau of National Affairs, the “inclusion of personal

information does not, by itself, take material outside the ambit

of FOIA.” Id. Were that not true, an official could avoid

disclosure of the only documentation of a meeting held with

industry officials during the pendency of a rulemaking -- the

very information that CFA seeks in this case -- simply by

adorning the document with personal entries. In Bureau of

National Affairs, we held that Baxter’s daily agendas were

“agency records,” notwithstanding that the “personal

information contained in the agendas [was] identical to that

found in Mr. Baxter’s appointment calendars,” which we found

to be personal records. Id. at 1496. The distinguishing factor

was that the agendas were “distributed to staff” for their “use in

determining Mr. Baxter’s availability for meetings,” while the

calendars were “created for the personal convenience of [Baxter]

so that [he] could organize both [his] personal and business

appointments.” Id. The calendars of the five senior USDA

officials are indistinguishable from Baxter’s agendas in that

regard, and, accordingly, USDA has failed to “sustain[] its

burden of demonstrating that the documents requested are not

‘agency records.’” Gallant, 26 F.3d at 171.

This is not to say, of course, that the officials’ personal

calendar entries must be produced along with those relating to

agency business. To the contrary, both sides agree that the

personal entries may be redacted, and we so held in Bureau of

National Affairs. See 742 F.2d at 1496 (“The personal

USCA Case #05-5360 Document #977782 Filed: 06/30/2006 Page 17 of 23
18

information contained in the agendas . . . may be redacted from

the copies made available to BNA.”). CFA does not seek

information about the USDA officials’ lunches with friends or

trips to the dentist; it simply wants to know “what the[]

government is up to,” a goal that is in accord with the “basic

policy” of FOIA. Reporters Comm., 489 U.S. at 773 (internal

quotation marks omitted). That documents must be redacted to

protect personal information does not contravene the conclusion

that they are “agency records.” 

4. Finally, we address the sixth USDA calendar -- that of

Assistant Administrator Derfler -- which provides a counterpoint

to the above analysis. While, like his more senior colleagues,

Derfler “distributed” his calendar “to better communicate about

[his] availability,” he distributed it only to his “secretary and any

temporary secretaries that filled in for [his] permanent

secretary.” Derfler Aff. ¶ 9. This places Derfler’s electronic

calendar on the same side of the line as Assistant Attorney

General Baxter’s desk calendars, which were similarly

distributed only to his secretary, and which Bureau of National

Affairs held were not “agency records.” 

As the court explained, “use of the documents by employees

other than the author is an important consideration” in ensuring

that personal papers are not swept “into FOIA’s reach.” Bureau

of Nat’l Affairs, 742 F.2d at 1493. “An inquiry is therefore

required into . . . the extent to which the creator of the document

and other employees acting within the scope of their

employment relied upon the document to carry out the business

of the agency.” Id. In this case, there is no evidence that “other

employees” (apart from his secretary) relied on Derfler’s

calendar. Rather, like Baxter’s calendars, it was “not distributed

to other employees.” Id. at 1496 (emphasis in original). And

just as that fact “distinguish[ed]” Baxter’s desk calendars from

USCA Case #05-5360 Document #977782 Filed: 06/30/2006 Page 18 of 23
19

his daily agendas, id., so, too, it distinguishes Derfler’s

electronic calendar from those of his superiors.

IV

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s

judgment that the electronic calendar of Assistant Administrator

Derfler is not an “agency record.” For the same reasons,

however, we reverse the court’s judgment that the calendars of

the other five senior USDA officials are not “agency records.”

So ordered.

USCA Case #05-5360 Document #977782 Filed: 06/30/2006 Page 19 of 23
KAREN LECRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judge, concurring:

While I concur in the majority’s holding that five of the six

calendars are “agency records” and thus subject to disclosure

under FOIA and that Derfler’s calendar is not, I do so reluctantly

because I believe the majority places too much stock in Bureau

of National Affairs, Inc. v. United States Department of Justice

(BNA), 742 F.2d 1484 (D.C. Cir. 1984), and leaves some key

questions unanswered. 

The value of BNA as precedent is, I believe, diminished

after the United States Supreme Court’s decision in United

States Department of Justice v. Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. 136

(1989). In BNA, the court relied heavily on the authors’ purpose

in creating the documents. It was primarily for that reason that

the court determined that Baxter’s daily agendas were “agency

records” but his appointment calendars were not. The daily

agendas were created “to inform the staff of Mr. Baxter’s

availability,” BNA, 742 F.2d at 1495, whereas the appointment

calendars were created for Baxter’s “personal convenience,” id.

at 1496. After BNA, however, the Supreme Court determined

that the author’s intent is irrelevant to whether a document is an

“agency record.” In that case, the agency argued that the

documents were not prepared to be relied upon in agency

decisionmaking and therefore were not “agency records.”

Rejecting the argument, the Court noted, “This argument,

however, makes the determination of ‘agency records’ turn on

the intent of the creator of a document relied upon by an agency.

Such a mens rea requirement is nowhere to be found in the Act.”

Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. at 147. Tax Analysts thus appears to

have rejected the rationale used in BNA. In light of Tax

Analysts, BNA’s utility as a “template,” maj. op. at 9, is, to me,

questionable. 

There is another reason I believe BNA is not the “tight fit”

the majority describes. It relies on BNA without thoroughly

addressing the difference between the paper documents in BNA

USCA Case #05-5360 Document #977782 Filed: 06/30/2006 Page 20 of 23
2

1

The majority’s discussion of control makes a distinction based on

whether the calendars were maintained on the agency’s server or on

the hard drive of the author’s office computer. See maj. op. at 12–13.

It cites to a letter the USDA sent to CFA, in which the USDA

indicated that the authors maintained their calendars “on the FSIS

computer system.” Id. (citing Letter from USDA to CFA at 1).

Nevertheless, each author indicated in his affidavit that his calendar

was maintained “on the computer system in my office.” E.g., McKee

Aff. ¶ 6 (emphasis added). If each calendar was in fact stored “on the

computer system in [the author’s] office,” then control seems to cut

against the finding that the calendar is an agency record, that is, the

author intended to maintain control over it. 

and the electronic data here. For instance, the majority assumes

without record support that, because the calendars were entered

on the agency’s computer system, they are “necessarily

subject[ed] . . . to the control of that system’s administrator” and

therefore, presumably, agency records.1

 Maj. op. at 13. But

BNA is not authority for the notion that a calendar entered on a

computer belonging to the agency means that the agency has

“control” over it. Cf. Gallant v. NLRB, 26 F.3d 168, 172 (D.C.

Cir. 1994) (“Thus, appellant’s suggested test that employing

agency resources, standing alone, is [sic] sufficient to render a

document an ‘agency record,’ is inconsistent with governing

precedent.”). In any event, the majority retreats from its

“control” discussion in asserting that “even if the USDA

calendars never entered USDA’s files, that would not decide the

question before us.” Id. More important, in the post-BNA age,

virtually every document is entered on a computer system. But

BNA’s emphasis on “distribution” does not transfer all that

easily into the paperless world and that is because “distribution”

does not equate to “access.” The distribution of the daily

agendas in BNA differentiated them from the appointment

calendars which were simply available to certain personnel who

USCA Case #05-5360 Document #977782 Filed: 06/30/2006 Page 21 of 23
3

2

Murrano may have “distributed” her calendar to fewer people

than McKee but her affidavit does not reveal the exact number of

individuals with access. She avers that in addition to her confidential

assistant, executive assistant, and special assistant, Terry Nintemann,

Dani Schor, and the Office of the Administrator received access to her

calendar. Murrano Aff. ¶ 8–9. It is unclear how many people in the

Office of Administrator had access.

could “access” Baxter’s desk and the OMB official’s desk.

Similarly, the personal calendars here were available to certain

personnel who could “access” the six USDA officials’

computers. If, after entering his personal calendar on his

computer, each of the six had clicked “send” to those with

access, that action might more closely equate to electronic

“distribution” and the calendars would then resemble the BNA

daily agendas. If the keystone of an “agency record” is whether

an “employee used the document to conduct agency business,”

see BNA, 742 F.2d at 1493, merely making a document

“available”—as opposed to directing (“distributing”) the

document to others in the agency—does not, it seems to me,

make likely the use of the document to conduct agency business.

The majority does not answer two significant questions,

namely how many people must the author “distribute” his

calendar to for it to be an agency record and does it make a

difference to whom the calendar is distributed? The answer to

the first may lie somewhere between one—Derfler distributed

his calendar to his secretary—and 11—McKee distributed his

calendar to 11 officials, the fewest recipients of the five officials

whose calendars the majority labels “agency records.”2

Moreover, the majority apparently believes that “distribution”

to one’s secretary is different from “distribution” to an equal or

superior but does not explain why. See maj. op. at 18. These

questions warrant further explanation because the majority treats

USCA Case #05-5360 Document #977782 Filed: 06/30/2006 Page 22 of 23
4

them as dispositive. In addition, whether 11 is too many under

BNA is unknown because BNA does not include numbers in its

“top staff” description. BNA, 742 F.2d at 1495. Perhaps BNA

does not quantify “top staff” because it would then have to

decide exactly where a quantitative difference (number of

personnel with access to calendar) becomes a qualitative

difference (“distribution”). Whether this is logically “doable”

seems to have also vexed the majority here. 

Finally, I would suggest precedent other than BNA provides

a better guide to decide this case. In Tax Analysts the Supreme

Court looked to two factors in deciding whether the documents

were agency records: (1) whether the agency created or obtained

the document and (2) whether the document was within the

agency’s control. Id. at 144–46. Even after Tax Analysts, we

have continued to analyze four factors: 

(1) the intent of the document’s creator to retain or

relinquish control over the records; (2) the ability of

the agency to use and dispose of the record as it sees

fit; (3) the extent to which agency personnel have read

or relied upon the document; and (4) the degree to

which the document was integrated into the agency’s

record system or files.

United We Stand Am., Inc. v. IRS, 359 F.3d 595, 599(D.C. Cir.

2004) (quoting Burka v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs.,

87 F.3d 508, 515 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (in turn quoting Tax Analysts

v. Dep’t of Justice, 845 F.2d 1060, 1069 (D.C. Cir. 1988), aff’d

on other ground, 492 U.S. 136 (1989)) (internal quotation marks

omitted)); see Gallant, 26 F.3d at 172. Under this precedent, the

six calendars look, at least to me, less like agency records. 

USCA Case #05-5360 Document #977782 Filed: 06/30/2006 Page 23 of 23