Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/47729553/CREW-v-DHS-Secret-Service-Re-WH-Visitor-Logs-Health-Care-Execs-7-22-09-CREW-s-Memorandum-in-Support-of-Preliminary-Injunction
Timestamp: 2019-09-21 12:27:53
Document Index: 418524523

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 552', '§ 2201', '§ 552', '§ 552', '§ 552', '§\n552', '§ 552', '§ 552', '§ 552', '§ 552', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 552', '§ 5', '§ 552', '§ 552', '§ 5']

CREW v. DHS (Secret Service): Re: WH Visitor Logs – Health Care Execs: 7/22/09 - CREW's Memorandum in Support of Preliminary Injunction | Freedom Of Information Act (United States) | United States Department Of Homeland Security
saveSave CREW v. DHS (Secret Service): Re: WH Visitor Logs ... For Later
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND :
This is an action under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, for
expedited processing and release of agency records concerning visits to the White House and the
residence of the vice president by leading health care industry executives from January 21, 2009,
to the present. There has been widespread and exceptional media interest in the virtual gridlock
between Congress and the administration as they wrestle with a legislative solution to the health
care crisis confronting our nation. President Obama reportedly has had closed-door talks with
industry executives in an effort to win over industry support for his proposal and is pushing
Congress to finish up its committee work on overhauling health care with a goal of having a bill
by October. The economic consequences of not reaching a consensus on health care legislation
are predicted to be quite dire. Under these circumstances, where members of the public have an
urgent and compelling need for the requested information to weigh in with their congressional
representatives before the enactment of health care legislation, CREW quite clearly has a right to
expedited processing of its request.
Nevertheless, Defendant Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) has refused to
process CREW’s request at all, much less on an expedited basis. Instead, DHS claims the “vast
majority” of records responsive to CREW’s request are presidential records not subject to the
FOIA and otherwise exempt in their entirety. The government makes this claim despite multiple
court rulings that the requested records are agency records for which the Secret Service, a
component of defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), has a legal obligation
to search and produce under the FOIA. At most, DHS has held out the possibility that the White
House – not a party to this litigation – could decide at some future indeterminate time to make a
discretionary release of at least some of the requested records. This remote possibility is clearly
no substitute, however, for the expedited processing to which CREW is entitled under the FOIA.
As a result, DHS’s refusal to process CREW’s request presents a clear violation of the
FOIA and conflicts with the statutory purpose of expedition. Where, as here, time is at the
essence of plaintiff’s rights and defendant DHS’s obligations, the Court should issue an order
compelling DHS to process and disclose the requested records immediately.
President Obama has made one of the core issues of his presidency bringing the spiraling
health care costs under control, something he has described as “essential to providing all
Americans with affordable, quality care, making our businesses more competitive, and closing
our budget deficits . . .” Exhibit 1 to Letter from Anne L. Weismann, CREW, to United States
Secret Service (June 22, 2009) (hereinafter “CREW FOIA Request”) (Attached as Exhibit A) .1
Toward that end, members of Congress have offered competing legislative solutions, while the
president has issued his own directives on the form health care legislation must take. The
economic stakes are enormous, with some legislative proposals topping one trillion dollars, and
the president already has held closed-door talks with industry representatives to build support for
his approach. See, e.g., Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Robert Pear, Obama Open to Reining in
Medical Suits, The New York Times, June 15, 2009 (Exhibit 2 to CREW’s FOIA Request). The
health care issue dominates the news as the administration and Congress slog through the various
and competing approaches and attempt to deal with the very powerful and significant economic
interests the health care industry represents.
In the wake of this issue, the push to have legislation enacted by October, and in light of
the president’s oft stated commitment to transparency and accountability, CREW sent a FOIA
request to the Secret Service on June 22, 2009, seeking records of any visits to the White House
and the vice president’s residence that 18 leading health care executives may have made.
Acknowledging the position the government has recently taken in response to another FOIA
request from CREW for White House visitor records – that the requested records are
presidential, not agency, records and therefore not subject to the FOIA – CREW also asked the
Secret Service to make a discretionary release of the requested records. As CREW noted, the
White House already has acknowledged publicly meetings the president or other administration
officials have held with a number of the individuals included in CREW’s FOIA request. See
Exhibit A contains CREW’s FOIA request as we1l as the exhibits attached to that
Exhibit 1 to CREW’s FOIA Request.
CREW sought expedited processing of its request for the express purpose of
disseminating any responsive documents to the public. CREW explained the particular urgency
to inform the public about the possible influences to which the administration may have been
subject in formulating its health care policy, pointing to reported closed-door talks between the
president and industry executives, the potential economic impact of not reaching a consensus on
a health care proposal, and the virtual gridlock in Congress over this critical issue. CREW FOIA
Request at p. 5. CREW also sought a waiver of fees associated with processing its request. Id.
at pp. 3-5.
The Secret Service responded by letter dated July 7, 2009. Referring to pending
litigation, DHS advised CREW of:
the government’s position that the vast majority, if not all, of
the records that would have to be searched to determine whether
any records responsive to your request exist are not agency
records subject to the FOIA. Rather, these records are records
governed by the Presidential Records Act, 44 U.S.C. § 2201
et seq., and remain under the exclusive legal custody and
control of the White House Office and the Office of the Vice
Letter from Craig W. Ulmer, Special Agent in Charge, U.S. Secret Service to Anne L.
Weismann, CREW (July 7, 2009) (attached as Exhibit B). According to DHS, the Department of
Justice has determined that “disclosing some or all of the requested records could reveal
information protected by the presidential communications privilege.” Id. As for CREW’s
alternative request that DHS make a discretionary release, the agency stated “the White House
and the Office of the Vice President are currently reviewing the policy for such discretionary
releases,” and promised to respond to the request for a discretionary release “[i]f necessary”
when that review is completed. Id. While DHS did not address CREW’s request for expedition,
it represented it would address CREW’s fee waiver request if the White House determined to
make a discretionary release. Id. DHS did not afford CREW any administrative appeal rights.
I. THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO GRANT THE REQUESTED RELIEF
A. Preliminary Injunctive Relief To Compel Expedited Processing Is
The FOIA confers jurisdiction on this Court, upon the filing of a complaint, “to enjoin
improperly withheld . . .” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B). A requester is deemed to have exhausted its
administrative remedies “if the agency fails to comply with the applicable time limit provisions .
. .” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C). See Oglesby v. Dep’t of the Army, 920 F.2d 57,62 (D.C. Cir.
1990), appeal on remand, 79 F.3d 1172 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (“If the agency has not responded
within the statutory time limits, then . . . the requester may bring suit.”); cf. Am. Civil Liberties
Union v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 321 F.Supp.2d 24, 28 (D.D.C. 2004 (“ACLU v. Dep’t of
Justice”) (FOIA authorizes review of challenges to agency denial of expedited processing).
Courts have specifically recognized the general availability of injunctive relief to compel
expedited processing of FOIA requests. See, e.g., Long v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 436 F.Supp.
2d 38 (D.D.C. 2006) (denying injunctive relief in FOIA case after considering request under
four-factor preliminary injunction test); Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v Dep’t of Justice, 416
F.Supp.2d 30, 35 (D.D.C. 2006) (“EPIC”) (granting preliminary injunction to compel expedited
processing); Al-Fayed v. CIA, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21476, at *6 (D.D.C. Sept. 20, 2000)
(denying injunction after considering request under four-factor preliminary injunction test), aff’d
254 F.3d 300 (D.C. Cir. 2001); Aguilera v. FBI, 941 F.Supp. 144, 152-53 (D.D.C. 1996)
(granting preliminary injunction and ordering expedited release of documents).
That preliminary injunctive relief is an appropriate form of relief in a FOIA case is
highlighted by the language of the FOIA itself, which mandates that FOIA cases “take
precedence on the docket over all other causes and shall be assigned for hearing and trial at the
earliest practicable date and expedited in every way.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3). See also
Renegotiation Bd. v. Bannercraft Clothing Co., Inc., 415 U.S. 1, 13 (1974) (under section 552
“the FOIA suit generally is to take precedence on the court’s docket and is to be expedited on the
calendar.”).
Here, where plaintiff is asserting a statutory entitlement to expedited review of its FOIA
request premised upon a showing of “compelling need” for the requested information, 5 U.S.C. §
552(a)(6)(E), and the agency has failed to respond on an expedited basis, the FOIA quite clearly
confers jurisdiction on the Court to consider the requested preliminary injunction. See EPIC,
416 F.Supp.2d at 35 and cases cited therein; Elec. Frontier Found. v. Office of the Director of
Nat’l Intelligence, 542 F.Supp.2d 1181, 1185 (N.D. CA. 2008); The Washington Post v. Dep’t of
Homeland Sec., 459 F.Supp.2d 61, 66 (D.D.C. 2006), vacated by, appeal dismissed as moot,
2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 6682 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 27, 2007) (“Washington Post”).; see also Edmonds
v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, 417 F.3d 1319, 1323 (D.C. Cir. 2005 (“expedited processing of a
FOIA request is a statutory right”).
B. The Court Has Jurisdiction Over This Action.
Plaintiff may argue the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this action because the
records at issue are not subject to the FOIA. This is, of course, one of the ultimate merits issue
the Court likely will be called upon to decide. In considering this matter, the Court should be
guided by the conclusion of every court to have reached this issue to date – the records at issue
are agency records of the Secret Service that must be produced in response to a properly
submitted FOIA request.
The requested records are generated by two electronic systems the Secret Service uses to
monitor visitors to the White House, the Worker and Visitor Entrance System (“WAVES”) and
the Access Control Records System (“ACR”), as well as records generated by the Secret
Service’s separate system for monitoring and clearing visitors to the Vice President’s Residence
(“VPR”). WAVES records include information White House pass holders provide in advance to
the Secret Service – the proposed visitor’s identifying information (name, date of birth, social
security number), time and location of the scheduled appointment, name of the person submitting
the request, name of the recipient of the visitor, date of the request, and type of visitor expected
(e.g., press, temporary worker) – as well as any additional information the Secret Service adds as
a result of a background check. See CREW v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 527 F.Supp.2d 76,
80 (D.D.C. 2007), appeal pending, No. 09-5014 (D.C. Cir.). ACR records are created when a
visitor swipes his or her pass upon entering and exiting the White House Complex, and include
the visitor’s name and badge number, the time and date of his or her entry and exit, and the
specific post that recorded the swipe. Id.
United States District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth, after evaluating a complete
factual record and applying the two-prong test for agency records enunciated by the Supreme
Court in U.S. Dep’t of Justice v. Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. 136, 144 (1989),2 concluded all of these
records are agency records subject to the FOIA.3 Judge Lamberth found the first factor –
whether the records were created or obtained by the Secret Service – indicated agency record
status based on the process by which the visitor records are generated, 527 F.Supp. at 90-91, and
the fact they “are created primarily for the agency’s use.” Id. at 91.
Judge Lamberth’s conclusion that the White House visitor records are under the control
of the Secret Service – the second prong of the two-part analysis – was reached after considering
four factors identified by the D.C. Circuit:
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
record system or files.
Id. at 92, quoting Burka v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Serv., 87 F.3d 508, 515 (D.C. Cir.
1996). Balancing these four factors, Judge Lamberth “ha[d] no difficulty concluding the visitor
records are under the Secret Service’s control.” Id. at 97. While the Secret Service claimed no
intention to control the records, its “historical use of the visitor records suggest that it does in
fact control the records.” Accordingly, the Court held “use trumps intent.” Id. As Judge
Lamberth reasoned, “[b]ecause the Secret Service creates, uses and relies on, and stores the
visitor records, ‘in the legitimate conduct of its official duties,’ they are under its control.” Id. at
The Supreme Court identified two factors for determining what constitutes agency
records under the FOIA : (1) whether the records are obtained or created by the agency, and (2)
whether the records are under the agency’s control. See id. at 88.
The FOIA request before him sought records of White House visits by leading Christian
98, citing Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. at 145.4 See also CREW v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 592
F.Supp.2d 127 (D.D.C. 2009), appeal pending, No. 09-5014 (D.C. Cir.) (same conclusion as to
White House visitor records requested for visits by Stephen Payne); Washington Post, 459
F.Supp. 2d 61 (preliminary injunction compelling agency to process FOIA request on an
expedited basis granted based, in part, on finding plaintiff had likelihood of success because
White House visitor records sought are agency records subject to FOIA).
As this precedent makes clear, the records at issue are agency records subject to the
FOIA. Accordingly, the Court has jurisdiction to consider plaintiff’s requested preliminary
II. CREW IS ENTITLED TO A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
A. Standards For Preliminary Injunctive Relief.
This Circuit employs a four-part test to determine whether preliminary injunctive relief is
warranted: (1) the plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable injury to the
plaintiff absent the requested relief; (3) harm to other interested parties; and (4) the public
interest. See, Mova Pharm. Corp. v. Shalala, 140 F.3d 1060, 1066 (D.C. Cir. 1998), quoting
CityFed Fin. Corp. v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 58 F.3d 738, 746 (D.C. Cir. 1995); see also
Washington Metro. Area Transit Comm’n v. Holiday Tours, Inc., 559 F.2d 841, 843 (D.C. Cir.
1977); EPIC, 416 F.Supp.2d at 35-36. These factors are balanced against each other on a sliding
scale and a stronger showing on one factor can compensate for a weaker showing on another.
Judge Lamberth reaffirmed this conclusion when the case came before him once again
on remand from the D.C. Circuit, 592 F.Supp. 2d 127, 130-31 (D.D.C. 2009). The appellate
court had dismissed the government’s appeal of the December 2007 ruling for lack of
jurisdiction. See CREW v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 532 F.3d 860 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
CSX Transp., Inc. v. Williams, 406 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2005. “An injunction may be justified,
for example, where there is a particularly strong likelihood of success on the merits even if there
is a relatively slight showing of irreparable harm.” CityFed Fin. Corp., 58 F.3d at 747.
B. Plaintiff Is Likely To Prevail On The Merits.
In assessing plaintiff’s likelihood of success this Court must consider whether plaintiff is
entitled to expedited processing of its request and whether DHS has processed the request
consistent with that entitlement. On this issue plaintiff is likely to prevail.
Amendments to the FOIA, enacted in 1996 as the Electronic Freedom of Information Act
Amendments, require among other things that agencies provide for expedited processing of
FOIA requests in certain cases. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E). Under the FOIA, a requester is entitled
to expedition upon a showing of a “compelling need, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(I), which the FOIA
defines as including requests “made by a person primarily engaged in disseminating
information” where there is an “urgency to inform the public concerning actual or alleged
Federal Government activity.” Id. at § 552(a)(6)(E)(v)(II).
When an agency grants a request for expedited processing, it is statutorily obligated to
process the request “as soon as practicable.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(iii). The legislative history
to these amendments makes clear Congress did not impose a specific deadline on agencies to
complete expedited processing, “its intent was to ‘give the request priority for processing more
quickly than otherwise would occur.’” EPIC, 416 F.Supp.2d at 38 (emphasis in original),
quoting S. Rep. No. 104-272 at 17 (1996).
DHS regulations provide for expedited processing of FOIA requests in two instances: (1)
where the lack of expedition “could reasonably be expected to pose an imminent threat to the life
or physical safety of an individual”; and (2) where there is “[a]n urgency to inform the public
about an actual or alleged federal government activity” and the requester is “primarily engaged
in disseminating information.” 6 C.F.R. §§ 5.5(d)(1)(I)-(ii). Requesters seeking expedition
based on the second instance must “establish a particular urgency to inform the public about the
government activity beyond the public’s right to know about government activity generally.” 6
C.F.R. § 5.5(d)(3). In addition, a requester that is not a full-time member of the media must
establish that “their main professional activity or occupation is information dissemination,” but it
need not be their “sole occupation.” Id. DHS regulations further require DHS to grant or deny a
request for expedited processing within 10 calendar days of receipt, and to give priority and
process requests “as soon as practicable” when expedition is granted. 6 C.F.R. § 5.5(4).
Plaintiff here sought expedition of its FOIA request based on the urgent need “to inform
the public about the possible influences to which the administration may have been subject in
formulating its health care policy,” CREW FOIA Request at 5, thus invoking the provisions of 6
C.F.R. § 5.5(d)(ii). This need is premised on the very substantial current public interest in the
administration’s approach to health care policy, already identified closed-door talks President
Obama has had with health care industry executives, the administration’s ongoing efforts to win
over public and congressional support for is health care proposal, the potentially enormous
economic impact of not reaching consensus on such a proposal, as well as the president’s push to
have a legislative package before him by October. See CREW’s FOIA Request at 5. The
ongoing national debate on an issue of such enormous public significance establishes decisively
plaintiff’s right to expedition. See Washington Post, 459 F.Supp.2d at 65 (requester seeking
White House visitor records to “assist the public in ‘the degree to which lobbyists and special
interest representatives may have influenced policy decisions of the Bush administration’”
entitled to expedition) (citation omitted); Long v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 436 F.Supp.2d at 43
(noting “judges of this Court have found sufficient exigency to grant expedited processing in
situations where there was an ongoing public controversy associated with a specific time
frame.”); Leadership Conference on Civil Rights v. Gonzales, 404 F.Supp.2d 246, 260 (D.D.C.
2005) (“urgency element” met where legislation related to subject of request about to expire);
ACLU v. Dep’t of Justice, 321 F.Supp.2d at 28-29 (cited newspaper articles discussing
“widespread public concern” in issue for which FOIA requester sought documents).
This conclusion is underscored by the broad statutory language Congress used to describe
when expedition is mandated: where there is an “urgency to inform the public concerning actual
or alleged Federal Government activity.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(v) (emphasis added). As the
court in Bloomberg v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin., 500 F.Supp.2d 371, 377 (S.D.N.Y. 2007),
The use of the word “concerning” in this context is significant
because it does not suggest an exclusive or definitive source of
the information that might shed light on the relevant government
activity. Instead, the word “concerning” in its ordinary meaning
is much more broadly understood. Its definition is ‘relating to;
to be about; to bear on.’ Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary,
In addition, CREW is “primarily engaged in disseminating information,” as both the
FOIA and DHS regulations require. CREW is a non-profit, non-partisan organization that
“routinely and systematically disseminates information in a variety of ways to accomplish its
stated goal of informing the public about the activities of government officials.” CREW’s FOIA
Request at 4. Those methods of disseminating information include:
• maintenance of a frequently visited website, www.citizensforethics.org (it
received 114,015 visits in May 2009) on which CREW posts documents it
acquires from its many FOIA requests;
• publication of an on-line newspaper, CREWCuts, that had 13,912
subscribers at the time CREW submitted its FOIA request in June 2009;
• publication of a blog, Citizens blogging for responsibility and ethics in
Washington, that reports on and analyzes newsworthy developments and
provides links directing readers to other articles and commentary
(CREW’s blog had 2,280 hits in May 2002);
• publication of numerous reports, available at
http://www.citizensforethics.org, (examples include The Revolving Door,
a comprehensive look at the post-government activities of 24 former
members of President George W. Bush’s cabinet; 2008 Top Ten Ethics
Scandals; 2008 Most Embarrassing Re-Elected Members of Congress;
2008 Most Corrupt Members of Congress; and Those Who Dared: 30
Officials Who Stood Up For Our Country).;
• dissemination of documents CREW acquires from its FOIA requests
through www.governmentdocgs.org, an interactive website CREW
founded that includes thousands of pages of public documents from a
number of organizations in addition to CREW.
CREW’s FOIA Request at 4-5.
As with the Electronic Privacy Information Center and the ACLU, two organizations the
courts have found satisfy the criteria for expedition, CREW “gathers information of potential
interest to a segment of the public, uses its editorial skills to turn the raw material into a distinct
word, and distributes that work to an audience.’” ACLU v. Dep’t of Justice, 321 F.Supp.2d at 30
n.5, quoting EPIC v. Dep’t of Defense, 241 F.Supp.2d 5, 11 (D.D.C. 2003). See also Leadership
Conference on Civil Rights v. Gonzales, 404 F. Supp.2d at 260 (requester deemed “primarily
engaged in disseminating information” where it maintained a website intended “to serve as the
site of record for relevant and up-to-the-minute civil rights news and information.”).
Accordingly, CREW is likely to prevail on its entitlement to expedition.
Just as clearly, DHS has not met its statutory and regulatory obligations to rule on and
grant CREW’s request for expedited processing. DHS’s letter of July 7, 2009 – the only
communication CREW has received from the agency regarding its FOIA request – does not even
acknowledge CREW’s request for expedition and makes no representation on whether and when
the Secret Service will process the FOIA request. Without question DHS has not acted on
CREW’s request for expedition within 10 calendar days of receipt as governing regulations
require, 6 C.F.R. § 5.5(4). Nor has DHS given CREW’s request priority and processed it “ as
soon as practicable,” id.; indeed, the agency has denied any obligation to process the request at
On the basis of the record before the Court, plaintiff has a substantial likelihood , if not a
certainty, of prevailing on the merits of its claim that defendant has failed to expedite CREW’s
C. Plaintiff Will Suffer Irreparable Injury Absent The Requested Injunctive Relief.
Unless the Court immediately enjoins DHS from failing to comply with its obligations to
expedite the processing of plaintiff’s FOIA request, plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury. The
very nature of the right plaintiff seeks to vindicate through this action – expedited processing –
depends on the agency’s timeliness. As courts have recognized, where “time is of the essence”
preliminary injunctive relief is appropriate. See, e.g., United States v. BNS, Inc., 858 F.2d 456,
465 (9th Cir. 1988); Martin-Marietta Corp. v. Bendix Corp., 690 F.2d 558, 568 (6th Cir. 1982).
Particularly in the FOIA context “stale information is of little value.” Payne Enterprises, Inc. v.
United States, 837 F.2d 486, 494 (D.C. Cir. 1988). Further, where expedition of a FOIA request
is “statutorily proscribed, the specter of information becoming stale and of little value,
increases.” EPIC, 416 F.Supp.2d at 41.
In addition to the loss of its clearly established statutory right, further delay in processing
plaintiff’s FOIA request will irreparably harm plaintiff’s ability, and that of the public, to obtain
in a timely and useful fashion information vital to the current and ongoing debate over national
health care policy. Under these circumstances, “the public interest is particularly well-served by
the timely release of the requested documents.” Id. at 42. See also Washington Post, 459
F.Supp.2d at 75 (“Because the urgency with which the plaintiff makes its FOIA request is
predicated on a matter of current national debate, due to the impending election, a likelihood for
irreparable harm exists if the plaintiff’s FOIA request does not receive expedited treatment.”).
Indeed, delay under these circumstances “may well result in disclosing the relevant documents
after the need for them in the formulation of national . . . policy has been overtaken by events.”
Natural Resources Defense Council v. Dep’t of Energy, 191 F.Supp.2d 41, 43 (D.D.C. 2002),
aff’d in part, rev’d in part, remanded, 412 F.3d 125 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (granting motion for
release of documents).
The scramble in Congress to put a legislative package on health care together in short
order, a factor that weighs in favor of expedited processing,5 also evidences the harm to plaintiff
and the public if expedition is denied. Meaningful debate over and consideration of the health
care crisis our nation faces “cannot be based solely upon information that the Administration
voluntarily chooses to disseminate.” EPIC, 416 F.Supp.2d at 41 n.9. Indeed, the public
oversight mechanism the FOIA provides is central to open and democratic debate on critical
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights v. Gonzales, 404 F.Supp.2d at 260; ACLU v.
Dep’t of Justice, 321 F.Supp.2d at 31.
policy issues such as the best direction health care legislation should take. As the Supreme
Court has observed, the FOIA is “a means for citizens to know ‘what the Government is up to.’
If the information plaintiff seeks here is to contribute to the public debate on health care
policy, it must be disclosed expeditiously. Because time is of the essence in this matter, plaintiff
will be irreparably harmed unless the Court acts now, “when it [is] still possible to grant
effective relief,” and before “all opportunity to grant the requested relief [is] foreclosed.” Local
Lodge No. 1266 v. Panoramic Corp., 668 F.2d 276, 290 (7th Cir. 1981).
D. Injunctive Relief Will Not Burden Others’ Interests.
Requiring DHS to comply with the law and expedite its processing of CREW’s FOIA
request can hardly be characterized as an undue “burden” that outweighs the clear harm to
plaintiff if injunctive relief is denied. All that plaintiff seeks through a preliminary injunction is
the government’s compliance with what the law already mandates. Nor will the requested relief
burden the interests of other parties who have submitted FOIA requests to DHS in any manner
beyond that foreseen by Congress when it enacted the expedited processing provisions of the
FOIA. In providing for expedited processing of qualifying requests, Congress intended such
requests would take precedence over those that do not qualify for expedition. Fulfillment of the
legislative intent cannot be characterized as a burden on any party’s interests. See Washington
Post, 459 F.Supp.2d. at 75 (concluding under similar circumstances preliminary injunction does
not burden any other interested party).
E. The Public Interest Favors The Requested Relief.
As the D.C. Circuit has recognized, “there is an overriding public interest . . . in the
general importance of an agency’s faithful adherence to its statutory mandate.” Jacksonville Port
Auth. v. Adams, 556 F.2d 52, 59 (D.C. Cir. 1977), quoted in EPIC, 416 F.Supp.2d at 42. This is
no more important than in the context of the FOIA, which was enacted to provide public access
to government records “to ensure an informed citizenry, vital to the functioning of a democratic
society . . .” NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 242 (1978). Likewise, it is
“axiomatic that an ‘agency is required to follow its own regulations.’” Edmonds v. FBI, 2002
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26578, at *9 (D.D.C. Dec. 3, 2002) (quoting Cherokee Nation v. Babbitt, 117
F.3d 1489, 1499 (D.C. Cir. 1997).
Such adherence is all plaintiff seeks. Particularly where, as here, there is great public and
media interest in the administration’s formulation of health care policy, “[t]here is public benefit
in the release of information that adds to citizens’ knowledge” of government activities. Ctr. to
Prevent Handgun Violence v. Dep’t of the Treasury, 49 F.Supp.2d 3, 5 (D.D.C. 1999). The
public interest favors the issuance of an order directing defendant DHS to immediately process
and release the requested information.
III. THE COURT SHOULD ORDER DHS TO PROCESS CREW’S
FOIA REQUEST IMMEDIATELY
Although preliminary injunctive relief is not the norm in FOIA cases, such relief plainly
is appropriate and necessary here to give meaning to the statute’s expedited processing
provisions. See EPIC, 416 F.Supp.2d at 35 n. 4 (“the court may use its equitable power to
prevent agency delay, even when exercise of such authority is preliminary in nature.”).
Congress expressly required agencies to make determinations on requests for expedited
processing within 10 calendar days, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(ii)(I), and provided for immediate
judicial review of adverse determinations, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(iii), demonstrating an intent
that the courts should act quickly to vindicate the right to expedition. See, e.g., ACLU v. Dep’t
of Justice, 321 F.Supp.2d at 28-29 (exhaustion of administrative remedies not a prerequisite to
judicial review of agency expedition decision).
Given this context, the entry of a preliminary injunction here compelling DHS to process
CREW’s FOIA request immediately is both necessary and appropriate. As explained above,
CREW satisfies each of the four prerequisites for the entry of a preliminary injunction.
Moreover, the appropriate form of relief is clear. DHS regulations mandate the agency give
priority to expedited requests and process them “as soon as practicable.” 6 C.F.R. § 5.5(4).
Accordingly, the Court should order DHS to process plaintiff’s FOIA request immediately.
In addition, recognizing the significant public interest in the records at issue and to
facilitate the informed participation of the public in the current and ongoing debate over the
appropriate solution to the nation’s health care crisis, the Court should direct DHS to complete
processing plaintiff’s request and produce all non-exempt documents within 10 days of the
issuance of the order plaintiff seeks. This time-frame takes into account the very fast pace at
which health care legislation is proceeding – the president is pushing Congress to have a health
care package completed by the August recess – as well as the relatively light burden processing
CREW’s request is likely to impose given the short period of time is encompasses.
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction should be
granted. Plaintiff asks that the Court, pursuant to Local Rule 65.1(d), schedule a hearing on this
motion at the Court’s earliest convenience.
July 22, 2009 Attorneys for Plaintiff
Documents Similar To CREW v. DHS (Secret Service): Re: WH Visitor Logs – Health Care Execs: 7/22/09 - CREW's Memorandum in Support of Preliminary Injunction