UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT C OU RT F O R T H E D IS T R IC T O F C O LU M B IA

__________________________________________ ) N A T U RA L R E S O U R C E S D E F E N S E C O U N C IL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Ci vi l A cti on No. 08 -14 29 (P L F) ) UNI TED STATES ENVI RONMENTAL ) PROTECTI ON AGENCY, ) ) De fe nd ant. ) __________________________________________)
MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON This Fre edom of Information Ac t case is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for summary judgme nt and on def

endant’ s motion for schedulingorder s for the pr ocessingand
re le a se of re c or ds and

the br ie fi ngof

le g a l is su e s. Af

te r c are fu l c on sid e ra

tio n o f t he pa rt ie s’ paper s, the Court will deny both motions and will enter a sche duling or der a s descr ibed below. Pla int if f, Natur a l Re so ur c e s D e fe ns e Counc il ( “ NRDC ” ), is a no n- pr of it environmenta l and public hea lth org anization. See Complaint (“Compl.”) ¶ 5. On July 17, 2008, NRDC submit ted a F OIA re quest to the United States Environmental Protec tion Age ncy (“EPA” ) for r ecor ds reg ardingthe use of the pesticide c lothianidin on crops in the United States, EPA’s evaluation of the safe ty

of the pe sticide on bee s, studies submit ted by chemica l manufac turers
re l at i n g t o th e t o x i ci ty

o f t h e p es t i ci d e t o b ee s , an d co m mun i ca t i o n s wi tho th er fe d er al o r f

o re i gn
a g e nc ie s r e g ard inge nv ir onme nta l r isk s p os e d b y the pe sti c ide . Se e Com

pl. ¶ 7 . N RD C a lso soug ht a public intere st fee w aiver in connec tion with it s FOIA re quest. See Compl. ¶ 10. Havingrec eived no substantive r esponse f rom the EPA, plaintiff filed suit in this Court.2 Plaintiff promptly

filed a motion for summar y judgme nt arguing that (1) it was entitled to a public intere st fee w aiver ; and (2) the Court should gra nt judgment a g ainst the EPA, beca use the EPA did not make a final dete rmination on plaintiff’s F OIA re quest within the statut or y pe ri od of 20 bu sin e ss d ay s. Se e 5 U .S. C. § 55 2( a )( 6) (A )( I ). Th e EPAg ra nte d N RD C a fee waiver

a fe w wee ks later. See Def endant’ s Motion for Scheduling Orde rs for Proc essing and Release of Recor ds and B riefingof L eg al I ssues at 3. Plaintiff ag ree s that its mot ion for summary judgme nt is now moot as to the fee w aiver . See NRDC’s Partial Opposition to EPA’s Motion for SchedulingOrde r at 1.

Plaintiff’s summary

judgme nt motion i s ripe as to plaintiff’ s reque st that judgment be issued ag ainst the EPA for f ailing to make a timely

final dete rmination. Defe ndant ar g ues that its unti mely

response does not support g rantingsummary judgme nt. I f an a g ency

does not respond to a F OIA re quest within 20 day s, the reque stor is deemed to have exhausted the adm in is tr ati ve re med ies andmay im med iat ely

pu rsu e ju di cia l r evi ew, see Fl owe rs v . I RS , 3 07 F. Supp. 2d 60, 66-67 (D.D.C. 2004) ( citing 5 U .S.C. § 552(a)(6) (C)), but an immediate awa rd of judgme nt ty

pically is considere d premature. Plaintiff has c ited no leg al authority to the contra

ry . Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgme nt as to defe ndant’s produc tion obligations will be denied without prejudice.

Also befor e the Court is defe ndant’s motion for a sc heduling order . Ba sed on the time line proposed in the EPA’s motion, the EPA should have c ompleted its production of
re sp on siv e , n on e xemp t r e c or ds on May 1, 20 09 . F or

do c ume nts to whic h th e EPAbe lie ve s a FOIA exemption may

apply , the EPA proposes that r ather than cr eate a Va

ug hn Index, it provideU n d e r th e F O IA , ana g e n c y

m ay w i th h o l d d o c u m e n t s r e s p o n s i v e t o a F O IA 1 reque st only

if the re sponsive documents fa ll within one of nine enumer ated statutory exemptions . See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b); see also Dep’ t of Def ense v. F ed. L abor Relations Auth., 510 U.S. 487, 494 (1994). The ag ency bear s the burden of

justify ing a

ny withholding. See Big wood v. United States Ag ency for Int’l Dev., 484 F . Supp. 2d 68, 74 (2007). To ena ble the Court to determine whe ther doc uments proper ly wer e withheld, the a g ency must provide a detailed de scription of the infor mation withheld throug h the submission of a so-ca lled “Va ug hn Index,” sufficiently

detailed a ffidavits or de clar ations, or both. I d.; see a lso Og lesby v. Dep’ t of the Ar my , 7 9 F .3 d 1 17 2, 11 78 (D .C. Cir . 1 99 6) ; V a ug hn v. Ros e n, 48 4 F .2 d 8 20 , 8 27 -2 8 ( D. C. Ci r . 1 9 7 3 )
. T h e V a

u g h nIn d e x an d

/o r a c c o mp an yin g a f

f id av it s o r d e c la r a ti o n s mu s t “ p r o v id e [] a re lativ e ly de ta ile d ju sti fi c atio n, sp e c if ic a lly ide nti f[y] the re a so ns why a pa rt ic ula r e xemp tio n is rele vant and c orre lat[e] those claims with the par ticular pa rt of a w ithheld document to which they apply .” Judi cial Watch, Inc. v. F DA, 449 F .3d 141, 146 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (quotingMead Data Ce nt., I nc. v. De p’t of the Air For ce, 566 F .2d 242, 251 (D.C. Cir. 1977)).

3 pla int if f w itha “ Withho ldi ngL ist .” Th e Withho ldi ngL ist wo uld no t ne c e ssa

ri ly c omp ly wi th 1 the re quirements of a

Vaug hn Index, but would i nclude a brief de scription of the subjec t matter
and sp e c if y wh ic h, if any , o f t he re c or ds are su sp e c te d to c on ta in c on fi de nti a l bu sin e ss inf or matio n ( “ CB I ” ). Un de r t

he EPA ’s re g ulatio ns , if

a do c ume nt s ub mitte d b y

a thi rd pa rt y appea rs to contain CBI , the EPA is require d to conduct a c onfidentiality analy sis and aler

t the business that the rec ord is under r eview. See 40 C.F.R. §§ 2.204(a) (1); 2.204(d) ; 2.204(e). T he EPApr op os e s th at w ith in 3 0 d ay s o f r e c e ivi ngthe Withho ldi ngL ist , p la int if f i nf or m th e EPA wh e the r i t inte nd s to purs ue the pr od uc tio n o f a

ny wi thh e ld r e c or ds , a

nd that pl a int if

f s e pa rate ly ide nti fy wh ic h o f t

ho se are amon g the re c or ds su sp e c te d to c on ta in C B I . O nly the n d oe s th e EPA propose that it beg in the confide ntiality revie w re quired of suspe cted CB Idocuments. Plaintiff strenuously

objects to the EPA’s propose d schedule , arguing that both the
cre ation of the Withholdi ng L ist and the EPA’s sepa rate desig nation of cla imed CBI information
un du ly sh if ts the a g e nc y ’s pr od

uc tio n b ur de ns to t

he pla int if

f a nd de lay s th e sc he du le fo r u lti mate pr od uc tio n a nd /or lit ig atio n. Th e Court

a g re e s. Al tho ug h it

is p re fe ra ble fo r F OIA l iti g ants toTh e de a dli ne s p ro po se d b y pla int if f f or pr od uc tio n h ave pa sse d, makin g a c a de mic 2 the qu e sti on

of wh e the r E PA’ s p ro po se d e xten sio n o f t ime fo r i nit ia l r e vie w o f t he do c ume nts is too leng thy . Ba sed on its own proposed sc hedule, EPA should have completed r eview of the do c ume nts by

no w a nd sh ou ld b e a

ble to p ro vid e pla int if

f w itha Va ug hn Ind e x pro mpt ly , if

it has not alre ady

done so. 4 work out a pr oduction schedule amongthemselves, plaintiff is under no obligation to agr ee to a schedule other than what would ty pically be leg ally

require d — namely

(1) the a g ency ’s cr eation and produc tion of a Va

ug hn Index si multaneously with its production of nonexempt records, a nd (2) the pr ompt processingof docume nts suspected to conta in CBI — simply

beca use the a g ency finds that its obli g ations under the F OIA ar e g reat. See Multi AG Media L L C v. Dep’t of A g ric., 5 1 5 F. 3 d 1 2 2 4 , 1 2 2 7 (D
. C
. C i r. 2 0 0 8 ) ( th e a gen cy h as th e b urd en t o j u s t i fy

an y wi th h o l d i n gs under the FOIA); 40 C.F.R. 2.204(a ) (“ Action sh all be take n und e r t

his se c tio n w he ne ve r a

n E PA office . . . lear

ns that it is responsible for re sponding to a reque st under 5 U.S.C. § 552 for the rele ase of business information. . .”) ( emphasis adde d). De fenda nt must promptl y

produce a le g a lly su ff ic ie nt V a ug hn Ind e x, wh ic h in c lud e s th e c la ime d CB Ido c ume nts . 2 The EPA also re quests a prolong ed summary judgme nt briefingschedule , but do e s n ot e xpla in why

su c h a sc he du le is n e c e ssa

ry . Witho ut a g re e me nt b y the pa rt ie s o r s ome showing of nec essity , the Court will not order a br iefingschedule so substantially in excess of th a tp r o v i d e d

f o r i nth e Lo c a l C i v i l R

u l e s . S e e L. C V . R. 7. The Court will adopt plaintiff’s sug g ested time line — af

ter the EPA c ompletes its document production and V aug hn Index, the parties should ea ch have 21 day s for its motion and its opposi tion papers, a nd 14 day s to reply
.5 An Orde r consistent with this Memorandum Opinion will issue this same da y . /s/_____________________ PAULL . FRI EDMAN Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge DATE: June 23, 2009