1 UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA

____________________________________) CITIZENS F OR RESPONSIBILIT Y ) AND ETHICS IN WASHI NG TON, ) ) P la in t if f, )

) v. ) Ci vilAc ti on N o. 08 -1 53 5 ( RC L) ) U. S. D EP AR TM EN T OF ) HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., ) ) De fend ant s. ) ____________________________________)

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION This matter come s befor e the Court on def endant’ s Motion [ 9] for Summ ary J udg ment and plaintiff’ s subsequent Cross-Motion [10] for Summary J udg ment. For

the re asons containe d here in, the Court will gra nt summary

judgme nt for plaintiff. These motions raise leg al issues identical to some addr essed by this Court i n para llel litigation, Citi

zens for Responsibility and Ethics in W ashington v. U.S. Departme nt of Homeland Se c ur ity , e t al

. , No. 06-1912, in which the same plaintiff sought the same ty pe of r ecor ds from the same de fe nd ant. F or

tho se iss ue s, thi s o pin ion wi ll n ot r e pe at at le ng th t he le g a l ana ly sis from opinions in that lit igation. I t will ins tead summarize the a naly ses when a

pplicable a

nd ref er to 06-1912 opinions for a more detailed e x planation.Pla int if f i nd ic ate d th at it s inte re st i n St e ph e n Pa y ne wa s r e late d to re po rt s o f h is 1
“ atte mpt [s] to s e ll a c c e ss t o to p Wh ite Ho us e of fi c ia ls i n e xch ang e fo r c ontr ibutio ns to t he B us h presidential libra

ry .” (D ef.’ s Opp’n at 1.) These ty pes of White House a

nd VPR visi t rec ords ar e discussed in de tail in Citi zens for 2 Responsibility and Ethics in W ash. v . U .S . D e p’ t of Ho me lan d S

e c ur ity , e t al

. , 527 F. Supp. 2d 76, 79–87 (D.D.C. De c. 17, 2007). That leng thy discussion is not repeate d here . As noted later here in, though, this Court does follow that opinion’s position that these rec ords ar e “a g ency rec ords” subjec t to FOIA. Acc ordingto defe ndant, these r ecor d cate g ories we re not implicated in the pa rallel 3 litigation. See su

pra no te 2. De fe nd ant’ s b ri e f e xpla ine d th e se c ate g or ie s: Parkingrec ords ar e cr eate d by the White House; the Secre t Service doe s not modify or add a ny thing to them. Second Ca ldwell Dec l. ¶¶3–4. Da ily briefing sh e e ts, wh ile c re ate d b y

the Se c re t Se rv ic e , c onta in s c he du lin ginf or matio n th at is supplied by

the White House. Id. ¶¶5–6. Similarly , the Secr et Service has rec eived some pr otectee schedule s from the White House, id. ¶7, and na me che ck repor ts contain appointment information fr om the Whit e House or other authorized Whit e House passholders, id. ¶¶8–9. The Secre t Service r ece ives e2 I. F ACTUAL BACK GR OUND In J uly 2008, plaintiff filed a

FOIA re quest with defe ndant see king a g ency rec ords re lated to visit s by

Stephen Pay

ne to the White House or the V ice Pre sident’s reside nce ( “VPR”). The 1 Se c re t Se rv ic e , a

c omp on e nt o f d e fe nd ant, c re ate s v ari ou s ty pe s o f r e c or ds a sso c iate d w ith visitors to either the White House complex or the VPR. The main rec ords of visitors to the Whit e House are Acc ess Control Records Sy stem (“ACR”) rec ords and Worker and Visitor Entr anc e Sy ste m ( “ WAV ES” ) r e c or ds . O the r s e c ur ity -r e late d r e c or ds are a lso ma int a ine d. VPR vis it r e c or ds inc lud e po st e ntr y log s ( ha nd wr itt e n e ntr

y re c or ds ), pe rm ane nt a

nd da ily a c c e ss l ist s (c le ara nc e lis ts f or re gula r v isi tor s and

sp e c if ic vis ito rs , r e sp e c tiv e ly

), e ve nt l ist s ( c le ara

nc e lis ts fo r p art ic ula

r e ve nts ), and

e -m a ils re qu e sti nga c c e ss t o V PR. Othe r r e c or ds re fl e c tin gWhit e 2 House visitors include par king r ecor ds, daily

briefingsheets, sche dules, name c heck r eports, email acc ess re quests, and “V isitor Mult iple Entry Reports.” When defe ndant did not produce

3mail acc ess re quests from, amongothers, OVP staff . Third Morrissey

Dec l. ¶34. Finally , the Visitor Multipl e Entry Reports are an embodiment of WAVES data. SeeFour th Morrissey

Dec l. ¶3. (De f.’s Mot. at 13 n.14.) 3 responsive r ecor ds within the period allowed by statute, plaintiff initiated this action.

II. ST ANDAR

D F OR SUMMAR

Y JUDG MENT Summary judgme nt should be g rante d when “ the pleading s, the discover y and disclosure materia ls on file, and any aff idavits show that there is no g enuine issue a s to any materia l fac t and that th e mov ant i s e nti tle d to jud g me nt a s a matte r o f l aw. ” F e d. R. C iv. P. 5 6( c ). Th e pa rt y seekingsummary

judgme nt bear s the initial burden of produc tion as to the absenc e of g enuine issues of mater ial fac t. Ce lote xCor p. v . Ca tre tt , 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). A g enuine issue of
m at e r i a l f a c te x i s t s i f

th e e v i d e n c e , v i e w e d

i nth e l i g h tm o s tf

av o r a b l e t o th e n o n m o v i n gp arty, “is such that a r easona

ble jury could re turn a ve rdict for the nonmoving pa

rty .” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). B ut a g enuine issue r equire s more than “ a scintilla of evidenc e” suppor ting the nonmovingparty ; “there must be evidenc e on which the jury could re asonably

find” for the nonmoving pa

rty . Id. at 252. The ope rative que stion for summary judgme nt motions in FOIA ca ses is whether the ag ency has executed a

sear ch “r easona

bly calc ulated to uncove r all re levant docume nts.” W eisberg v. U

.S. Dep’ t of Justice , 705 F.2d 1344, 1351 ( D.C. Cir. 1983). Summary judgme nt can be awa

rded ba sed on information provided by the ag ency

in affidavits or declar ations. Military Audit Project v. Casey , 656 F.2d 724, 738 ( D.C. Cir. 1981). Ag ency aff idavits or decla rations establishingthe ade quacy of a se arc h must be “re latively detailed a

nd non-4

conclusory .” SafeCard Servs. v. SE C , 926 F.2d 1197, 1200 ( D.C. Cir. 1991). Such aff idavits or decla rations “a re a ccor ded a pr esumption of g ood faith.” Id . “An a g ency must demonstrate that ‘ea ch docume nt that falls within the class re quested e ither has be en produc ed, is unidentifiable, or is wholly

exempt from the Act’s inspec tion requireme nts.’” Long v. Dep’ t of Justice , 4 50 F. S u p p . 2 d 4 2 , 5 4 (c i t i n g Goland v. CIA , 607 F.2d 339, 352 ( D.C. Cir. 1978) (interna l citation and quotation omitt ed)) . I f the a g ency claims that rec ords ar e exempt from disclosure, it bea rs the burden of showingthat the claimed e x emption applies. See 5 U .S. C. § 55 2( a )( 4) (B ); U.S. Dep’ t of J us tic e v . Ta

xAn aly sts , 492 U.S. 136, 142 n.3 (1989).

III . A NA LY SIS Def endant make s three ma in arguments in favor of its mot ion. First, def

endant c ontends that the re cords soug ht by plaintiff ar e not “a g ency

rec ords” subjec t to FOIA. Second, de fenda nt
argue s th at F OIA m

us t be c on str

ue d a s e xclu din gthe se re c or ds so a s to avo id “ se ri ou s q ue sti on s” about its constituti onality . Finally , defe ndant claims that the soug ht rec ords re flec t presidential communications and thus ar e exempt from disclosure unde r F OIA Exempti on 5. This Court’s opinions in t he par allel ca se, No. 06-1912, r ejec t all three of these a rguments. This opinion
re je c ts the m a s w e ll, fo r t

he same re a so ns .

A. The Re c or ds So ughtby P lai nt iff Ar e Ag e nc y R e c or ds The Court’s De cembe r 17, 2007 opinion in the para llel liti g ation No. 06-1912 e stablished that many of the re cords soug ht by

plaintiff her e—WAVES rec ords, ACR rec ords, and the various ty pes of VPR rec ords—ar e “a g ency rec ords” subjec t to FOIA. Citi zens for5

Responsibility and Ethics in W ash. v . U .S . D e p’ t of Ho me lan d S

e c ur ity , 527 F. Supp. 2d 76, 88–98 (D.D.C. De c. 17, 2007). D efe ndant re cog nizes thi s prior adve rse r uling, but brie fs the issue in detail any

way “to pre serve its recor d for f uture a ppeal.” (De f.’s Mot. at 13.) D efe ndant offe rs no new the ories as to why these re cords should not be c onsidered “ ag ency rec ords” unde r FOIA. B eca

use the de fenda

nt bear s the burden of

demonstratingthat the soug ht rec ords ar e not subject to FO IA, U. S. De

p’ t of J us tic e v . Ta

xAn aly sts , 492 U.S. 136, 142 n.3 (1989), the Court maintains its posi tion that those recor ds are subject to FO IA. Def endant points out in a footnote that the r equest he re ma y implicate “a

small categ ory of re c or ds ” that w e re no t at is su e in 0 6- 19 12 (p ark ingre c or ds , d a ily br ie fi ngsh e e ts, sc he du le s,
name c heck r eports, e- mail acc ess re quests, and “V isitor Mult iple Entry Reports”). (

Id. at 13 n.14.) Mention of these rec ords was limited to this footnote only . The footnote c ontained one or two brief justifications for why defe ndant believe d eac h ty pe of r ecor d was not an “ ag ency
rec ord.” This pa ssing mention does not g ive the Court enough basis to hold that these new ty pes of re cords a

re a lso “ag ency

rec ords.” At the sa

me time, though, it fa lls short of establishing that the re cords a

re not ag ency rec ords. The a g ency

bear s the burden of

showingthat those ty

pes of
re c or ds wo uld

no t be c ov e re d b y

an a de qu ate se arc h o f a g e nc y re c or ds . A c c or din g ly , th is s ma ll cate g ory of re cords will be c onsidered a g ency rec ords for the purposes of this litigation.

B. “Constitutional Avoid ance” Doe s Not P rec lud e Applyin g F OIA to the Re cords at Iss ue Def endant br iefs the “ constitutional avoidance ” issue in much the same way as the “ag ency rec ords” issue. This Court disposed of the que stion in 06-1912, CREW v. DHS, 5 27 F.6

Supp. 2d at 98–100, and def endant, r ecognizi ngthe adve rse de cision (De f.’s Mot. at 24 n.21),
argue d th e iss ue a g a in. He re , d e fe nd ant e mph a size d h owa pp lyingF OIA t o th e se re c or ds wo uld
un c on sti tut ion a lly

int ru de on the Pr e sid e nt’ s a

bil ity to m a int a in c on fi de nti a lity and fr ank ne ss i n soliciting and r ece iving a dvice. How ever , defe ndant did not refute the primary basis for the Court’s ear lier opinion: in the absence of statutory ambiguity

the constitutional avoidance doctrine ha s no place , and F OIA unambiguously encompa sses the re cords at issue here
. See CREW v. DHS, 527 F. Supp. 2d at 98–100. As a result, the Court maintains that the doctrine of constitutional avoidance is inapplicable he re.

C. The Re c or ds A r e No t W it hin t he P r e side nt ialCo m m unic at ion s P r ivi le ge and T hus Ar e No t E xe m pt e d F r omDi sc los ur e by F OIAExe m pt ion 5 The fina l argument made by defe ndant was a lso made in 06-1912, and r esolved in an opinion issued today
. SeeMem. Op., No. 06-1912 [75] (D.D.C. J an. 9, 2009). D efe ndant ar g ued there , as it does her e, that re leasingthe soug ht rec ords would re flec t from whom the President
wa s so lic iti nga dv ic e and pe rh a ps e ve n a llo w o ne to s ur

mis e the c onte nt o f t

hat a dv ic e . A s a result, they

would be prote cted in the c ivil dis cover y context under the “pr esidential communications” privileg e, and thus e x empted fr om disclosure under FOIA by FOIA Exempti on 5. See 5 U.S.C. 552 § 552(b)(5) ( exempting “inter -ag ency or intra- ag ency

memorandums or letters which w ould not be available by law to a pa

rty other than a

n ag ency in liti g ation with the ag ency .”). Rely

ing on the exemption, defendant ne ither conf irms nor denies the e x istence of responsive r ecor ds. Such a “G lomar re sponse” is appr opriate “ wher e to answe r the F OIA inquiry [as to the ex istence or

nonexis tence of re sponsive rec ords] would cause ha rm cognizable underBe cause the pre sidential communications privileg e does not a pply , the Court need not 4 addre ss plaintiff’s ar gument that it was improperly invoked. 7 an F OIA exception.” Gardels v. CIA , 6 89 F .2 d 1 10 0, 10 03 (D .C. Cir . 1 98 2) ; s ee also Phillippi v. CIA , 546 F.2d 1009 ( D.C. Cir. 1976) (appr oving suc h a re sponse by the CI A re g ardingthe sec ret “Glomar Ex plorer” vessel). The 06-1912 opinion g oes into some detail in its rejection of this proposition, but the b o t t o ml i n e i s th atth e p r e s i d e n t i a l c o m mun i c at i o n s p r i v i l e g e p r o t e c t s o n l y communic ations ; the bit s o f i nf or matio n c onta ine d in

the so ught r e c or ds —n ame s o f v isi tor s, date s o f v isi ts, and in
some ca se who wa s visited—do not rise to the level of prote ction under the presidential communications privileg e. SeeMem. Op., No. 06-1912 [75] at 6–8 (D.D.C. J an. 9, 2009). Such 4 neg ligible intrusion into the presidential c onsultation process does not justify curta iling the public disclosure a ims of FOIA. See id. at 8–9. B eca use Exemption 5 does not apply here , defe ndant’s Glomar

response is simi larly

inappropriate.

CO NC LU SION For the re asons stated a

bove, the Court shall g rant summary judgme nt for plaintiff. A separ ate or der sha ll issue this date.
Signed by Roy ce C. L amber

th, Chief J udg e, on January 9, 2009.