Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/34418511/Horner-Appeal
Timestamp: 2017-03-24 14:05:41
Document Index: 98272467

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 552', '§ 1206', '§ 4683', '§ 2473', '§ 3516', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 2635', '§ 2635', '§ 1207', '§ 2635']

BrowseInterestsStay InformedCareerPersonal GrowthFiction & BiographiesHealth & FitnessLifestyleCultureBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoin﻿fI,_0./ I jIa;, I , , I II I I I I I NASA APPEAL UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT January 29,2010 The Hon .. Maj. Gen. Charles F. Bolden, Jr. (USMC Ret.) Office of the Administrator NASA Headquarters Washington. DC 20546 BY HAND DELIVERY Dear Administrator Bolden, I write to appeal in part the National Aeronautical and Space Administration's ("NASA") Initial Determination regarding my Freedom of Information Act ("FOJA") Requests lO-F-2007- 175 & 172 (Exs. 1 & 2) and Request 08-040 (Ex. 3). I I I I • • 2023584355 042607 p.in I. JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT The underlying FOIA requests were properly filed under 5 U5.C § 552 {West 20W}' Pursuant to 14 CF.R. § 1206.605, you have jurisdiction over any "initial determination which does not comply fully with the request." provided certain procedural requirements are met. The NASA Initial Determinations refused to release certain documents in NASA's possession, thereby granting you jurisdiction over this appeal, (Exs. 4 & 5). Further, all procedural rules have been complied with as this request is: (l) in writing, (2) properly addressed, (3) clearly identified as an "Appeal under the Freedom of Information Act" and includes a copy of the underlying requests and initial adverse determinations (Exs. 1-5), (4) sets forth grounds for reversal, and (5) was filed within 30 days of December 31, 2009, the date I received the initial adverse determination. See Id. n. PROCEEDINGS BELOW J This appeal involves three separate FOIA Requests and NASA's Initial Determinations thereto. 1. FOIA Request 10~F~2007~175. On August 27,2007, I filed another request for: copies of all records, documents, internal communications and other relevant covered material created by, provided to and/or sent by NASNGoddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). citing, referencing, discussing or otherwise relating to tbe emaU(s) sent to James Hansen and/or Rete A. Ruedy from a Stephen (Steve) Mcintyre - possibly but not necessarily using the address stephen.mcfntyre@ utoronte.ca - beginning on or about August 3, 2007 specifically mail caUing their attention to an errorts) in NASAIGISS online temperature data, as described herein: Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the United States Code, Code of Federal Regulations, and Federal Registrar are to the West 2010 versions. 2 2023584355 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 042529 P (I) (a) internal discussion of Mr. Mclntyres email and its contents. sllggcslion(s} and/or requesus) for correction of or otherwise changes to be made to the 20UO-2006 annual mean, US. mean temperatures, which email was sent on or about August 3, 2007 (referencing the data set and correction remarked upon by GISS at httpvdara.giss. nasa.gov/ gistcmp/graphs/); and (b) any and all related recordts), correspondence, memoranda, analysis, email or other communications citing or otherwise relating to such cmail(s), which were produced by or sent to NASA and/or GISS and any officers) falling under NASA's supervision, responsibility and/or control; and (2) all internal communications citing or addressing this Requesting Party's FOI Request dated August 24, 2007, which addressed the above-cited correction; (Ex. I). A response to this request was due September 24,2007. On January 28,2008, I provided the NASA FOIA office with notice that NASA"s response was five months overdue, and requested immediate compliance. (Ex. 6). [received no response to this request On June 23,2008, I sent another e-mail to the NASA ForA office noting that NASA's response was almost one year overdue, and requested immediate compliance. (Ex. 7). On June 24, 2008, I received an e-mail response from Ms. Joan Belt, a NASA (Goddard) FOIA Public Liaison Officer, stating in toto: "'We apologize for the delay in responding to your email. Your requested information has been forwarded to the Office of Chief Counsel for review. I will contact you as soon as the information has been returned to me for final processing. Thank you again for your patient [sic] regarding your request" On January 21,2009, I again e-rnailed the NASA FOIA office requesting that they respond to my request and noting President Obama' s Directive to agencies to provide the broadest possible disclosure under FOlA. (Ex. S), I received no response to this request. 3 · 202 3G8 4:355 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I NASA /! 04:2552 p.m On November 24,2009, having received no response to my e-mails, seventeen months prior informing that the information sat in "the Office of the Chief Counsel for review", I transmitted by electronic and certified mail a notice of intent to bring a civil action for disclosure of the requested records if NASA did not comply by December 22,2009. (Ex. 9). On December 21, 2009~the day before I intended to pursue my remedies=I received a response from the agency, in the form of a request by NASA for more time. See. e.g., (Exs. 10 & 11). I agreed. On December 31, 2009, I finally received a substantive response to the FOfA request I had served in August 2007. Regrettably, the agency informed me that it was making only a "partial response" and was continuing to obtain and review additional information that appears to be responsive. (Ex. 4). 2. FOIA Request 10-F-1007-171, On August 24, 2007, I sent, via regular and electronic mail, a FOIA request that sought: copies of all records, documents, internal communications and other relevant covered material created by, provided to and/or sent by NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), citing, referencing, discussing or otherwise related to the August 2007 correction by NASNGISS of online temperature data for over 1200 US HCN stations and for their U.S. temperature history as described herein: (1) (a) the correction of or otherwise changes made to the 2000-2006 annual mean, U.S. mean temperatures, on or about August 7, 2007 (the data set and correction remarked upon by GISS at http://data,giss.nasa,goy/gistempfgraphsl); and (b) subsequent, related information appearing directly on or directly linked to through NASAJGISS websites citing or referencing this correction, including but not limited to the "A Light On Upstairs?" posting by GISS's James Hansen, at http://www.columbia.edu/-jehl/distro_Light Upstairs 7081 O,pdf, to which NASNGISS directly linked for at least one week and still as of this writing at 4 I I , f I J I I I I I HASA. 04.2CiG pm http://data.giss,nasa.gov/gisternp/graphsl "Please see" A Light On Upstairs?" for discussions regarding the changes made OD August 7, 2007 for 2000-2006 annual mean, U.S. mean temperatures." (hyperlink, emphasis in original): and (2) any and all related record(s), correspondence, memoranda, analysis, email or other communications citing or otherwise relating to such recordts), which were produced by or sent 10 NASA and/or GISS and any officers) falling under NASA's supervision, responsibility and/or control; (Ex. 2). On November 24, 2009, having received no response to my Request, I transmitted by electronic and certified mail a notice of intent to bring a civil action for disclosure of the requested records if NASA did not comply by December 22, 2009. (Ex. 12). On December 21, 2009--the day before I intended to pursue my remedies=-I received a response from the agency, in the form ofa request by NASA for more time. See, e.g., (Exs. to & 11). I agreed. On December 3l, 2009, I finally received a substantive response to the FOIA request I had served in August 2007, Regrettably, the agency informed me that it was making only a "partial response" and was continuing to obtain and review additional information that appears to be responsive. (Ex. 4). 3. FOL4 Request 08-040. This request, filed on January 28,2008, sought: copies of all records, documents, internal communications and other relevant covered material created by, provided to, received and/or sent by an official of NASNGoddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) that cites, references, discusses or otherwise relates to the content, importance or propriety of posts or entries by this individual on the wcblog or "blog' http://www.rca1clima!e.org/, alternately styled in correspondence as "Realf'Iimate," "Real Climate." "RC," or "the blog", 5 G /27 I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I • • Responsive documents described above are limited to electronic mail or other correspondence sent or received by GISSfNASA employee Gavin A. Schmidt. (Ex. 3). A response was due February 26, 2008. On June 23, 2008, I sent another e-mail 10 the NASA FOlA office noting that NASA's response was almost one year overdue, and requested immediate compliance. (Ex. 13). On June 24, 2008, I received an e-mail response from Ms. Joan Belt, a NASA (Goddard) FOtA Public Liaison Officer, stating in toto: "We apologize for the delay in responding to your email Your requested information has been forwarded to the Office of Chief Counsel for review. I will contact you as soon as the information has been returned to me for final processing. Thank you again for your patient [sicjregarding your request" On August 26, 2008, I sent another e-mail to the NASA FOIA office noting that NASA's response was now another two months overdue, (Ex. 13). 1 recei ved no response to this request. On January 21,2009, I again e-rnailed the NASA FOIA office requesting that they respond to my request. and noting President Obama's Directive to agencies to provide the broadest possible disclosure under FOlA. (Ex. 14). I received no response to this request On November 24,2009, having received only one response to my e-mails, seventeen months prior, informing me that the information sat in "the Office of the Chief Counsel for review," I transmitted by electronic and certified mail a notice of intent to bring a civil action for disclosure of the requested records if NASA did not comply by December 22,2009. (Ex. 15) . On December 3 l , 2009, nearly two years after serving the initial request, r received the agency's initial determination. NASA Initial Determination on F01A-08 (Ex. 5) f'Inltia! Determination"). 6 • • • -- NASA In its Initial Determination, NASA stated that the responsive e-rnails fall into two categories: "(i) RC [(ReaIClima!e») email correspondence between Dr. Schmidt and other NASA officials; and (ii) RC[(ReaIClimate)) email correspondence between Dr. Schmidt and non-NASA external or private individual or entities:' Id. at 2. NASA said it had produced all responsive documents in category 0). The agency declined to provide any documents from category (ii). According to the Initial Determination, RealClimate is not a government entity and: (l ) Dr. Gavin Schmidt ("Dr. Schmidt") "docs not work on the RC blog, or create RC blog entries as part of his official duties with NASA," (2) "agency officials do not assign nor oversee Dr. Schmidt's work on the RC blog," (3) that NASA has no connection with ReatClimate "other than the fact that Dr. Schmidt serves as a contributing editor in his personal capacity and occasionally a GISS employee has appeared as a guest editor on the blog," (4) RealClirnate is hosted on an external domain name, (5) "Dr. Schmidt informs me that he maintains his RC email correspondence in his personal capacity on a computer provided not by NASA, but by Columbia University." lei. The Initial Determination opined that. under D.OJ. v. Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. 136, 145 (1989), a FOIA requester must show: (1) that the agency either created or maintained the records in question, and (2) that the agency was in control of the records at the time of the request. To determine whether NASA had "control" over materials, the Initial Determination applied the four-factor test set fourth by the D.C. Circuit in Burka v. HSS, 87 FJd 508, 515 (D.C. Cir. 1996). NASA concluded that "all four factors must be present." Initial Determination at 2) 2 The four factors are: [Footnote continued on next page] 7 I I I I • I I I I I I I I 04.27:22 p.m 02-0:3-2010 Based on HlIS analysis, the agency determined that c-mails between Dr. Schmidt and private individuals or entities arc not agency documents as "the Agency has no! come into possession of these ernails via the legitimate conduct of official duties and the Agency has no control over how the RC correspondence is created or maintained by Dr. Schmidt" Id. at 3. m. THE INITIAL DETERMINATION NOT TO RELEASE REAl-CLIMATE RELATED E&MAILS FROM OR. SCHMIDT TO OUTSIDE PARTIES SHOULD BE REVERSED I A. Standard of Review: AU Doubts Must be Resolved in Favor of Disclosure The agency's Initial Determination concerning Dr. Schmidt's e-ntails with third parties concerning RcalClimate is premised on a misapplication of FOIA Congress, through FOlA, "sought 'to open agency action to the light of public scrutiny. '" DO} v, Reporters Comm. for Freedom of Press, 498 U.S. 749,772 (1989) (quoting Dep 't of Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 353, 372 (1976». The legislative history is replete with reference to the, '"'general philosophy of full agency disclosure" that animite;;h·e~tute. Rose, 425 U.S. at 360 (quoting S. Rep. No. 813, 89th Cong., 2nd Sess., 3 (1965)). Accordingly, when an agency withholds requested documents=- as NASA has-the burden of proof is placed squarely on the agency, with all doubts resolved in favor of the requester. See, e.g., Federal Open Mkt. Comm. v. Merrill, 443 U.S. 340,352 (l979). This burden applies regardless of whether the agency is claiming an Exemption under FOIA or is claiming the requested items are not "agency records." See, e.g., Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. at 142 [Footnote continued from previous page] (J ) the intent of the document's creator 10 retain or relinquish control over the records; (2) the ability of the agency to use and dispose of the record as it sees fit; (J) 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. Butka, 87 F.:\d at 515. 8 -202 35f.\ 4.355 042745 p.rn IL 3; Consumer Fed 'n of America v Dep '/ ofAgriculture, 455 F,Jd 283,287 (D.C Cir. 20(6); Burka, 87 F.3d at 515. These disclosure obligations are to be accorded added weight in light of the aforementioned, recent Presidential Directive to executive agencies to comply with FOIA to the fullest extent of the law, which I specifically cited in two of my requests to NASA Presidential Memorandum For Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, 75 F ,R. § 4683,4683 (Jan. 21, 2009). As the President emphasized, "a democracy requires accountability, and accountability requires transparency," and "the Freedom of Information Act ... is the most prominent expression of a profound national commitment to ensuring open Government" Accordingly, the President has directed that FOlA "be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails" and that a "presumption of disclosure should be applied to all decisions involving F01A." The Presidential Directive also states that: Nondisclosure should never be based on an effort to protect the personal interests of Government officials at the expense of those they are supposed to serve. In responding to requests under the FOIA, executive branch agencies (Agencies) should act promptly and in a spirit of cooperation, recognizing that such agencies are servants of the public. The Presidential Directive merely reflects what NASA's position on FOIA has always been, By statute, the Administrator is directed to "provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning its activities and the results thereof" 42 U .S.C. § 2473, NASA's regulations similarly mandate the "widest practicable and appropriate dissemination" of information. J 3 In accordance with section 203(a)(3) of the [NASA Act] ... it has been and continues to lit' NASA policy to provide for the "widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning its activities and the results thereof" In compliance with the Freedom of Information ACl . > • a positive and continuing [Footnote continued on next page] 9 _202 :358 4355 II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i'l;\SA 04:2B 10 p_rn B. The Law of Agrnc~' Records Regrettably. the standards am¥ duties adopted by the agency and recently reinforced by ; ! the President were not met hcrc.i.Thc Initial Determination docs not apply a presumption in favor of disclosure and in any event misapplies the key precedents governing the definition of "'agency records," The framework in DO} v. Tax Analvsts, 492 US 136 (1989) governs the "agency records" inquiry, There, the Supreme Court prescribed a two-part test for determining whether or not a record was an "agency record" for FOIA purposes. These are "possession" and "control.' First, the agency must "either create or obtain" the requested materials-s-it need not have created them so long as it has possession of them. ld. at 144 (internal citations omitted), Second, the agency must be in control of the requested materials at the time the FOIA request is made, ld. at 145, "Control" is defined by the Court in this context to mean "that the materials have corne into the agency's possession in the legitimate conduct of its official duties:' ld. In evaluating whether the "control" prong has been satisfied, the D.C. Circuit frequently refers to the four factors from Burka which the Initial Determination purported to apply, namely: (I) 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 {Footnote continued from previous page] obhganon exists for NASA to make available 10 the fullest extent practicable upon request by members of the public all Agency records under HS jurisdiction i4 C.F.R * I:?U6102. 10 I , I I Nl\SA 0428:]0 P I)) (4) the degree to which the document was integrated into the agency s record system Of fi !cs. 87 F3d at 515. The Initial Determination opines that all four factors must be satisfied in order for a document to be an "agency record:' The Initial Determination misapplied the law in concluding that all four factors must be present The D,C, Circuit has repeatedly made dear that the "control" inquiry is "a totality of the circumstances test" that does not depend upon a mechanical application of the four-factor test Consumer Fedn, 455 F3d at 287-88, Accord, Bureau of NatI Affairs v. DO!, 742 F,2d 1484, 1490 (D,c' Cir. 1984), Thus, the Initial Determination applied the wrong standard, In addition, the first Burka factor is no longer good law, In Tax Analysts, the Supreme Court held that according weight to the intent of the drafter 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:' the Court stated, "is nowhere to be found in the Act." 492 US at 147. See also, Consumer Fed'n, 455 F.Jd at 291 fl. 11. ("We focus on the manner in which the documents I I were used, rather than on the subjective 'intent of the creator of [the} document,' because the Supreme Court has rejected reliance upon the later:'). I C. Dr. Schmidt's E-mails With Third Parties are "Agency Records," 1. NASA bas "Control" of the E-mails in Question and they Have Been Fully Integrated Into NASA's Records System It is crystal dear that NASA has "control" over the e-rnails in question. The RealClimate e-mails produced almost all appear to be sent via Dr. Schmidt's NASA e-mail address. Thus, they are "located" in the NASA e-mail servers, which NASA controls. As the D.c' Circuit noted in Consumer Federation, the fact that e-rnails can be deleted by the agency and searched by the J 1 - I • • ~ • • • • • .. 04:28:52 agency and arc electronically indexed. indicates both agency control and integration ..155 F 3d at 291. 2. Agency Resources Were Used to Create Dr. Schmidt's ReatCtimate E-mails Witb Third Parties. The usc of agency resources to create a document also weighs in favor of finding agency control. See. e.g., Gullallt v. NLRB, 26 f.3d 168, 172 (D.C. Cif. 1994). While the Initial Determination states that Dr. Schmidt engaged in Realf limate related activities on his personal time (Initia] Determination at 2), this is not correct, either as to Dr. Schmidt or Dr. Hansen's team at GtSS. Or. Schmidt and his colleagues at Dr. Hansen's lab have repeatedly used RealClimatc for purposes of public outreach, education, and public relations on behalf a/VASA. This is demonstrable in two ways: {1} the frequent posting to RealClimate by Dr. Schmidt during working hours, which if not sanctioned by NASA could potentially violate agency regulations, and (2) several instances, discussed, infra, at 15 in which RealClimate was used by Dr. Hansen as an information conduit for communications that responded to criticism of NASA, GISS, and work performed by NASA scientists on NASA's behalf. Rea!Climate timestamps show that Dr. Schmidt routinely posted to RealClimate and engaged in communications on RealClima!c issues during work hours. For example, from the inception of the Realf'lirnate blog through July 2008, Schmidt posted to Realf'lirnate on 52 separate occasions during work hours. See Table of Dr. Schmidt's Postings (Ex. 16). (This figure excludes posting by "group" in which Dr. Schmidt would likely have participated.r' Indeed, Dr. Schmidt posted often highly detailed writings while at work several times a month, ;1 SCI' (Exs 17-23)(Dr Schmidt \\orkillg em a "group" posting: during work hours) 12 13/27 I , I - I I • • • 2023584355 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIN.A~I~A.' .. ~~~ ___ 04-29_"-14 For example, in June 2008, Dr. Schmidt posted detailed entries on the nih <It .1:04 prn. the 26111 at 9:58 am, and the 191h at I :59 prn. ld. Similarly on April 3, 2008. Dr. Schmidt posted it kngthy post from work at 4:34 prn. M Notably, since the time that this FOIA request was issued to NASA, RealClimate changed its practice and Slopped providing time stamps for contributor's postings. In addition, the archives of RealClimate were modified to delete posting timestamps. Fortunately, copies of the original webpages have been retained. Thus, if one compares the RealClimate Archive postings (Exs. 24--27) with screenshots taken from the "Wayback Machine," an Internet site that archives webpages, it is apparent that posting timestamps have been deleted from the RealClimate site even though the substance of archived posts remains otherwise unchanged, See (Ex, 28). Because these postings occur during normal business hours, we presume they are authorized by the agency, as otherwise substantial and weighty questions would be raised under NASA's regulations. Under Office of Government Ethics ("OOE") regulations. "[ujnless authorized in accordance with law or regulations to use such time for other purposes, an employee shall use official time in an honest effort to perform official duties." Further, under the heading, "use ora subordinate's time," OGE regulations provide that, "[ajn employee shall not encourage, direct, coerce, or request a subordinate to use official time to perform activities other than those required in the performance of official duties or authorized in accordance with law or regulation." Id. The basis of these regulations is a desire that outside activities not interfere with a government official's duties. See Letter to lite President a/An Organization, 1995 WL 855435, ~3 (O,GE. Jul. 21, 1995), !t is clear that when a government official gives a speech (or here posts on a blcg), none of the lime of preparation and speaking can occur on government 13 I r -4 /;_;7 • • • • • I I I I I I I I I 042939 pm (OGE Jun. 28. 2007); Letter 10 the Inspector General (JIll (Jul/si-Official Federal £1111(\, 19l)4 WL 846698. "'2n I (O,G E" Jul. IS. 19(4) Moreover, the expenditure of any government urnc on a personal activity IS a violation of this rule; there is no de minimis exception, Sec Memoral1dum to Des igna ted Agellcy Ethics qlJiciuls Regarding Bonk Deal Involving Government Employees, 2008 WL 5761589 ;"17 (O.G.L Mar. 6, 2(08). This same absolute 111 Ie applies to subordinates. Id. 3. NASA Uses the E-matls Dr. Schmidt Sends to Third Parties and they Are Used by Dr. Schmidt to Execute his Agency Functions. Responsibilities, and Duties. a. NASA Uses Rea/Climate As A Mechanism To Convey Agency News NASA "uses" RealClimate related communications to convey information to the public and to further NASA goals of having its scientists monitor developments in their fields and interact in scholarly settings with their peers. In analyzing whether any agency "uses" a record, the D,C. Circuit in Bureau of National Affairs has explained: 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 ofFOlA. > • .the statute cannot be extended to sweep into FOIA's reach personal papers that may "relate to" an employee's work-s-such as a personal diary containing an individual's private reflections on his or her work-s-but which the individual does not rely upon to perform his of her duties, .. , In this regard, use of documents by employees other than the author is an important consideration, 742 F.2d at 1492~93. Accord. Consumer Fed'n, 455 F3d a! 290-91. Thus. by way of example • the D.C Circuit has held that personal calendars and notes of appointments arc "agency records" 14 1S I I I I 202 ·3.58 4355 02-03--2011) i I" distributed and relied upon hy nne' S stair but an: nol if they Me nol circulated or relied uron Sel! Consumer Fed 'n, 455 F.3d at 291-93; SoIl /I1J,I//s, 742 F.2d at 1494-V5.' There are many examples of NASA llsing RcalClimatc for public relations purposes on issues that directly pertain to agency issues. A highly relevant and revealing example of this relates to GISS temperature data corrections that are the subject of the first two FOIA requests. On August 2, 2007, Sleven Mcintyre eMf. Mclntyre"), a retired mining and engineering executive who maintains a website, "Climate Audit," on climate issues, posted an analysis contending that there was a Y2K computer programming error in GISS temperature data in the United States which affected the mean temperature readings upon which all the GISS climate models relied. See Posting by Mclntyre to Climate Audit on Aug. 3, 2007, 8:46 am (a Friday) (Ex. 29). These models and numbers had in tum been used in numerous articles published by GISS scientists and their collaborators. Essentially, the error artificially increased temperatures j on which GISS has based in part their conclusions that appreciable global warming was occurring in support of their anthropogenic warming argument. I On the day that Mr. Mclntyre posted his analysis, Dr. Schmidt at 1 :21 pm e-mailed Dr. I Reto Ruedy ("Dr. Ruedy"), another scientist at G[SS, to point out this potential error. Dr. I Schmidt Aug. 3,2007, I :21 pm e-mail (Ex. 30). In response, Dr. Ruedy sent an e-mail back to Dr. Schmidt stating there might in fact have been an error in {he GISS data, which prompted a I reply from Dr. Schmidt, who copied Dr. Hansen. Dr. Schmidt Aug. 3,2007,6:37 pm e-mail (Ex. file requester need not establish thaI every individual document was used by individuals in the agency, only that the relevant group or class of documents was used SO! Fox News Network v. Board of Governors of lire red. Reserve SYJ., 639 F.Supp2d 384, 397 (S [)NY 2(09){holding that is was irrelevant that attachment 10 email W;:$ not opened by recipients for the purposes of determiniag whether that auachmcnt was an "agency record"} 15 i J I t ! I J ~ ~ i i I ~ I I I I - I I I - I I I I I I I I I I 31l) On August 4, ~007, Mr. Mcintyre forwarded another e-mail to Hansen "notifying him or this problem." Posting of Mcintyre to Climate Audit (Jan. 23, 20 I 0, 12 J I am) ("J im Checks II--) (Ex. 31). On August 6, 2007 (a Monday) Drs. Ruedy, Schmidt. and Hansen worked on drafting a response to Mr. Mclntyre. Aug. 6, 2007, I \:47 am e-mail (Ex 33). Later, on August ()Ill, Mr. Mclntyre released another posting. Sec Mcintyre, "Jim Checks It." (Ex, 31). The next day, August 7, (a Tuesday), Drs. Ruedy, Makiko Sato (another GISS scientist) ("Dr. Sato"), and Hansen discussed the matter further. Dr. Ruedy Aug. 7,2007, 10:04 am e-mail (Ex. 33); Dr. Schmidt Aug 7, 2007, 11 :44 am e-mail (Ex. 34); Dr. Sato Aug. 7, 2007, I :22 pm email (Ex. 35); Dr. Hansen Aug. 7,2007, 1: 11 pm e-mail (Ex. 34); Dr. Ruedy Aug 7, 2007, 1:39 pm e-mail (Ex. 34), At 5:33 pm, Dr. Ruedy sent the final e-mail to Mr. Mcintyre, courtesy copying Drs. Schmidt and Hansen, in which he acknowledged the error in the GISS temperature data set, but explained it did not impact any of GlSS's prior conclusions that the earth was warming 35 the changes were not statistically significant. Dr. Ruedy Aug 7, 2007, 5:33 pm email (Ex. 36). On August 8, 2007 and early in the day on August 9,2007, a number of web sites and online newspapers began to post stories about this event. They reported that the GISS data sets had an error, and at that some time on the night of August 7 or early morning of August 8, GISS had revised millions of numbers in their data set posted on the NASA website. See Mcintyre, Jim Checks It (Ex 31). The morning of August 8, 2007, r"'1r. Mcintyre wrote an e-mail to Drs. Ruedy and Hansen thanking them for their response, positing additional questions, and requesting the data underlying their claims that the errors did not affect GISS temperature calculations. Mcintyre Aug 8,2007, [0:46 am e-mail (Ex. 37) 16 I - I - - - I I I I I I I • II I I 202 358 4355 NASA , I The next day, August () (a Wednesday) began at GlSS wuh Dr. Hansen and his team c- mailing back and forth as 10 the status of the temperature data See Dr, Hansen Aug. 9, 2007, 5 5 jam e-mail (Ex. 37); Dr Hansen Aug. 9,2007,10:01 am e-mail (Ex. 38); Dr. Ruedy Aug. 9, 2[)07, 11:03 am e-mail (Ex. 37) Later on Thursday, Andrew Revkin ("Revkin"),a New York Times environmental reporter, e-ntailed Drs. Schmidt and Hansen" and asked what data had been revised and why, whether those revisions had any effect, and requested comment on ML Mcintyre 's postings. Rcvkin Aug 9,2007,2:28 pm e-mail (Ex, 39), At 3:04 pm, Dr. Schmidt forwarded the e-mail to Drs. Ruedy and Hansen anda discussion and revisions ensued. See Dr. Schmidt Aug. 9, 2007, 3:04 pm e-mail (Ex. 39); DL Ruedy Aug. 9, 2007, 4:45 pm e-mail (Ex. 32); Dr. Hansen Aug. 9, 2007, ! 1 :34 pm e-mail (Ex, 40). Sometime after 6:00 pm, Dr. Hansen received an e-mail from a citizen requesting comment on a blog posting noting the temperature error. Anon. Aug. 9,2007,6:55 pm e-mail. Dr. Hansen then forwarded the e-mail to Dr. Ruedy, who in tum forwarded it to Dr. Schmidt at 7: 12 prn, writing: "Jim gets many of these kinds of responses-s-a change whose effect we described as well within the margin of error has become an 'astonishing change.' I guess the best thing is to ignore it and--(( at all-set matters straight in a place like ReaiClimate." Dr. Ruedy Aug. 9, 2007, 7: 12 pm e-mail (Ex, 41) (emphasis added). Dr. Schmidt replied, "agreed." E-Mail from Dr. Schmidt to Dr. Ruedy (Aug. 9, 2007, 7:24 pm) (Ex, 41). (, The original of this e-mail has no! been produced. 17 18/2/ i I : i I I I I J I. i ~ ~ I I I I 202 358 4355 I'-.JAS/\ 04:3108 pin. 02-03-20"10 On August 10,1007, more media outlets ran the story ofthe correction, and press inquires were forwarded to Dr. Hasen er al. See, e.g., New York Times "Opinionutor" Artie lc on August 10, 2007. 906 am (Ex. 42); McCarthy August! 0, II :00 am e-mail (Ex. 43); McCanhy, August 10,2007, 1107 am e-mail (Ex. 44), That morning, Dr. Hansell instructed his learn to draft a response. We do not know at what time this instruction was issued due to the incomplete production noted. ante, at 23. We do know that starting at ! 1:44 am, (he team-c-all NASA scientists responding to a critique of the data sets maintained by GISS--cngaged in a significant and furious drafting effort McCarthy Aug. 10, 2007, 11 :44 am e-mail (Ex. 45); Dr, Hansen Aug, 10,2007,11 :59 am e-mail (Ex. 45); Dr. Ruedy Aug. 10,2007,1:09 pm e-mail (Ex. 45); Dr. Hansen Aug. 10,2007,3:54 pm e-mail (Ex. 46); Dr. Robert B. Schmunk ("Dr. Schmunk") Aug, I I I I I I 10,2007,4:04 pm e-mail (Ex. 46); Dr. Sato Aug. 10,2007,4:18 pm e-mail (Ex. 47); Dr. Hansen Aug. 10,2007,4:29 pm e-mail (Ex. 48); Dr. Ruedy Aug. 10, 2007,4:35 pm e-mail (Ex. 47); Dr. Schmunk Aug. 10,200,4:43 pm e-mail (Ex, 47); Dr. Hansen Aug 10,2007,5:09 pm e-mail (Ex. 47); Dr. Hansen to Aug. 10,2007,5:43 pm e-mail (Ex. 47); Dr, Schmunk Aug. 10,2007,5:55 e- mail (Ex. 47); Dr. Hansen Aug. 10,2007,6:22 pm e-mail (Ex. 47); Dr. Sato Aug. 10,2007,6:27 pm e-mail (Ex, 48); Dr. Sato Aug. 10,2007,6:36 pm e-mail (Ex. 47). When the response piece, "A Light on Upstairs?" was completed, it was not issued via a press release or posted on a NASA website. Instead it appears that the NASA scientists involved I in this effort bypassed NASA procedures and posted on Dr. Hansen's personal external website, hosted at Columbia University. (Ex. 49) That same day'. contemporaneous (0 the final edition of vUpstairs." Dr. Schmidt posted an entry at Realt.'lirnatc entitled "j93,t and All That" in which he made the same points as Dr. Hansen, using the same graphs and much of the same analysis. Sec (Ex. 50). Despite 18 ~I I I I ~ j . . ,/ l' , 202 3~>8 4355 III II I I I II I I I I I I I that the post occurred a( 5:iJ pm Sec Aug. I (l, 2007 Rcalt.Iunatc scrccnshot (h. 51) On August 10, between 5:09 and 54J pm, Dr. Sato wrote Jim, Please check if everything is fine. Robert, Please Jl/o\'C to the C[ollll!lhia/ U[ili\'(:rsl~r/ site and hide this «[ter Jim checks It. Darnell, Please send it out to Jim's e-mail list Jim said if I don't want to, you should, but it is not a matter of 1 WANT to or NOT WANT TO. I don 't know how. Dr. Sate Aug, 10,2007, time unspecified in responsive e-mail thread provided (emphasis added) (Ex. 47). These facts make clear that important NASA scientists were using Realf'limate-vamong other wehsites=-as a venue to respond to public criticism of NASA data sets, and NASA analysis. This example also demonstrates that Dr. Schmidt used Realf.limate as the venue for publishing the results of intensive work performed by a team of NASA scientists to investigate and correct errors in NASA's GISS global temperature data sets. Aller the external publication of "A Light on Upstairs')" and Dr. Schmidt's Realf.limaie posting, NASA continued to receive press inquiries regarding the GISS temperature corrections. For example, on August 131M, NASA received an inquiry from the Washington Times. Dr. Hansen Aug. 13,2007,8:50 pm e-mail (Ex. 52). In response to inquiries from NASA headquarters public relations officers, Dr. Hansen wrote only, "send them' A Light on Upstairs'i·" ld. Similarly, Dr. Hansen referredDamian McClean from Bloomberg to the "Upstairs" note. Dr. Hansen Aug. 14,2007,12:15 pm e-mail (Ex. 53). See a/so, Dr. Hansen Aug. 14,2007,2:52 am e-mail (Ex 54). The NASA team had decided to post "Upstairs" On a 19 • NASA 0431.53pn. non NASA website for work that plainly relates to agency work. There arc many SL1ch examples.f h. There Arc Direct Links To NA5:'1 From RC(lIClillltliC III Dr Schmidt \- Bi() awl The NASA Wehpagc. NASA frequently refers visitors to NASA's wcbpage to data and articles on Realf limate, and NASA on its website states that Dr. Schmidt is a contributor to RealClimate. Similarly, RealClimate makes repeated references to the fact that Dr. Schmidt is a NASA scientist Dr. Schmidt's NASA profile has as the first entry under "Media and Outreach:' the following: "J am a contributing editor to the website Rcaklimatc.org which tries to provide context and background on climate science issues that are often missing in popular media coverage:' (Ex. 57). Realf.limate.org is a hyperlink to his official NASA webpage. Similarly, ., This course of conduct again raises questions under several regulations. The Data Quality Act of 2000, Pub L. 106·544, § l(a)(3), 114 Stat. 2763 ("DQA") provides that the Director of the Office of Management and Budge! COMB") must issue guidelines under 44 USc. § 3516, "that provide policy and procedural guidance to Federal agencies for ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information (including statistical inforrnation) disseminated by Federal agencies." Pursuant 10 this mandate, OMB published a Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review, 70 FR 2664-02 (Jan. 14,2005). This Bulletin prov ides that, "[IJo the extent permitted by law, each agency shall conduct a peer review on all influential scientific information that the agency intends to disseminate." Jd. at 2675. "Dissemination" is in tum defined as, "agency initiated or sponsored distribution of information to the public." ki. at 2674. However, the 01-.18 explanation of the term "scientific information" contains the important caveat that while the definition "includes information that an agency disseminates from a Web page:' it does not include, "the provisions of hypcrlinks on a Web page to information that others disseminate." !d. at 2667. The DQA requires NASA to Issue internal rules to implement the OMB regulations. DQA § (b)(2){A); Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality. Objccuvity. Utility, and frHegrity of Information DISseminated by FederalAgencies, 67 F.R 8458 (Feb. 22,2002). The NASA Procedural Requirements Manual. Chapter J (Ex. 55} has as its heading, "COMPLIANCE IS MANDATORY," and states, "[tjhis chapter presents the standards and responsibilities that apply when NASA employees prepare papers for or participate in scientific and technical symposia and when they prepare and submit information, e.g., monographs or journal articles, for external (non-NASA) publication." !d at § 3.1. § 3.2.2 in tum provides that there must be pre-approval under Chapter 4 for the dissemination of scientific papers. Chapter 4 provides a comprehensive review process including peer review. The posting and scientific conclusions posted by Dr Schmidt at RealClimale do appear to have complied with these procedures ;..: As noted. anu-. at \ 5, there are many examples of NASA 's use ofReafClimate for public relations and article publication purposes. Sec, eg, (Ex 56} (representative collected examples (rom produced documents and RealClunate Pcstings) 20 I I I I I I I I I I I I II • • • • • • • 202 3[·8 435[, NASh ··\1.1r.: informat ion about his research and puh licatior: record can he found here." the hen' ncillg it 11) pcrlin], to Dr Schmidt's NASA biography. These links arc presumably authorized hy NASA., as, if not. they again raise potential Issues about compliance with agency regulations. General executi ve branch ethical regulations. promulgated by the Office of Government Fthics ("()GE") provide: Appearance of governmental sanction. Except as otherwise provided in this part, an employee shall not usc or permit the USc of his Government position or title or any authority associated with his public office in a manner that could reasonably be construed to imply that his agency or the Government sanctions or endorses his personal activities or those of another. When leaching, speaking, or writing in a personal capacity, he may refer to his official title or position only as permitted by § 2635.807(b). 5 C.F.R. § 2635.701. These regulations apply to NASA employees. 14 C.P.R. § 1207. IOJ. The cross referenced section, 5 C.F.R. § 2635.807(b), in tum states: Reference to official position. An employee who is engaged in teaching, speaking or writing as outside employment or as an outside activity shall not lise or permit the usc of his official title or position to identify him in connection with his teaching, speaking or writing activity, or to promote any book, seminar, course, program or similar undertaking, except that: An employee may include or permit the inclusion of his title or position as one of the several biographical details when such information is given to idcnti fy him in connection with his teaching. speaking or writing. provided that his title or position is given no more prominence than other significant biographical details. The usc of nne < s position beyond a hlOgrarhical recitation is considered to violate the regulation. Sccl.; :11 Example ! (explaining National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra!!ol_l official !1l1gi11 use his name and Ink on official university biography while serving as an adjunc: 21 • • • • • • • • • • II u • II II NASA 04'32:50 p,rn pmtcssor. hut mere application ufho!d typc to n:nlll.' and 111k IS Il11Pl'11l1lSsihlcL t 'ndcr tIllS modeler at the NASA Goddard institute for Space Studies." ! Iowcvcr. Dr. Schmidt's RealClunate biography directs readers via hypcrlink to Dr Schmidt's NASA biography which, if not approved by NASA, is a potentially improper usc of an agency official position to endorse RealC!illlate Moreover, Realf'lirnate postings arc frequently referenced on official NASA webpages to explain scientific concepts, For example. NASA's Earth Observatory Public Information site contains the webpage entitled "Global Warming Questions & Answers," (Ex. 59). At the end of its answer to the question "if the Earth has warmed and cooled throughout history. what makes scientists think that humans are causing global warming now?" NASA h<b placed two hyperlinks under the title "Further Reading," one of which is a RealClimate Compilation of "Articles and Discussion on Paleoclimate." Id, Further, under the heading, "[w[hcre can I learn more about global warming?" NASA provides a hyperlink to RealClimate. Id. See also, NASA About Global Warming Fact Sheet (Ex. 60) (linking to RealClimate under "more information (' GISS Scientists Purportedly Use Rea/Climate As Part of Their NASA Work To SIal' Current In Their Fields and Communicate and Collaborate With Their "Scientific Community" NASA says that, as part of its functions, GISS officials purportedly "work cooperatively" With others. (Ex. 61). Sec also, (Ex. 62) (listing of conferences symposia with outside scientists hosted by GIS5), RcalChma!e purports [0 be a venue for such "professional collaboration", and the activities Dr. Schmidt purports to undertake there relate to this GISS function. See. eg, 22 NASA 04:;33i 1 D.m ReaIClima!c' About (Ex. 63) Accordingly, they are plainly intertwined with official agency functions and therefore arc agency records. IV. NASA liAS NOT MADE A REASONABLE SEARCH AND PRODUCTION OF RECORDS RESPONSIVE TO REQUEST # 08-040 AND HENCE MUST INITIATE A COMPREHENSIVE DE NOVO SEARCH. NASA's Initial Determination regarding Request # 08-040 states that all responsive documents were produced. This is demonstrably Incorrect. A review of documents culled from other sources indicates that the agency has not made a complete production and casts substantial doubt on the integrity and thoroughness of the initial search. FO [A requires an agency to make a reasonable search of records, judged by the specific facts surrounding each request. See. c.g.. Itrurralde \'. Comptroller of fhe Currency, 315 F.Jd 3[1,315 (D.C. Cif. 2003): Steinberg v. DO}, 23 F.3d 548, 551 (D.C Cir. 1994). In determining whether or not a search is "reasonable," courts have been mindful of the purpose of FO[A to bring about the broadest possible disclosure. See Campbell v. DOJ, 164 F.3d 20,27 (D.C. Cir. 1999) ("reasonableness" is assessed "consistent with congressional intent tilting the scale in favor of disclosure"). To be sure, reasonableness does not imply a perfect search, hut the search must be "'adequate ", on the '" facts of this case. '" Meeropol v. Meese, 790 F.2d 942, 95l (D.C Cir 1986) (per Bark, Scalia and Mackinnon, n.) (internal citations omitted). Reasonableness is not judged at the initiation of the search but is evaluated based upon the in formation before the agency when it makes its final determination, Campbell, 164 F.3d al28. Moreover, the fact that a search is made in good faith is not dispositive of reasonableness; the reasonableness determination is holistic. See Krikorian v. Dept 0/8101(/,984 F.2d 461, 468 (D.C. Cir. 1993), 23 Finally, agencies cannot structure their search techniques so as to deliberately overlook even a small ano discrete set of data, See Founding Church vj"Scietl!ology of Washington. D. C v. NStI, 202 358 43[,5 " • • • • • • • • • • • II • • II • • • r (d 0 F ?d S?"+. S37 (DC Cir. 1 In9) (holding agency cannot create a fd1llg system \\ 111(11 makes It likely that discrete classes. of data will be overlooked). The NASA leiter of December 31,2009 states that relative to Request # 08·0-10 NASA has. produced "RC [Reak'Iimnte] e-mail correspondence between Dr. Schmidt and other NASA officials because said documents constitute agency records." (Ex. 5). However, a review of c- mails released from the servers of the East Anglia University reveals that several e-rnails that appear to be responsive under the standard articulated by the agency do exist and were not produced. Under the agency's own test, responsive documents located on NASA servers and sent to multiple NASA accounts-vshould have been produced, But documents falling within this category were not produced. Sec Collected East Anglia University E~\lails (Ex, (4). V. NASA IS REQUIRED TO PRODUCE ALL RESPONSIVE INFORJ,\IA TlON TO REQUESTS tO~F-2007-172 & 1751111MEDIATELY. In response to Requests 07-172 & 175, NASA has produced 205 pages of responsive c- mails. However, in NASA's Initial Determination on the '07 Requests, NASA notes that the 205 pages are a "partial response" to these requests-which have been pending since 2007. Indeed, NASA notes that it is "continuing to obtain and review additional information that appears to be responsive" to the above request. (Ex. 4). Accordingly, by NASA's own admission, it has not, as of January 2010, made a fun response to requests that were filed on August 24 & 27,2007, respectively, though NASA informed me in June, 2008 that the documents responsive to at least 07 ~ 175 had "been forwarded to the Office of Chief Counsel for review". Indeed. the few documents that NASA has made available make clear that numerous responsive documents in aJ1 probability exist and have not yet been produced, For example, Request 07 ~ J 75 sought: 24 2023584:355 • • • • • • • NASA U"-t_v"",,-,~-..' t-'-' I •. ,Ill records, documents, mtcrnal C0l11111U111CaIIOIlS and other rd .. '\ ant covered material created by or prov idcd to alld or sent hy '.; AS A Glldtlard Institute 1'01' Space Studies ((;!SSL elting, referencing, dlsctlssing or otherwise related to the August 2007 correction by NAStVG ISS of online temperature data for 0\ cr 1200 US HeN stations and for then Us. Temperature data. (Ex I t Thus far only internal NASA c-rnails and a few e-ntails n.:CCI vcd from Sieve Mcintyre and a handful of reporters have been produced, The totality of the facts and circumstances suggest that the agency did not undertake a credible or reasonable search, A veritable public relations storm accompanied the news that GISS had modified its global temperature data sets. Such important agency news usually generates large amounts of correspondence from the interested public. Moreover, the materials already produced reflect the existence of other responsive documents. For example, on August 10; 2007 at 10'23 am, Dr. Hansen forwarded an e-mail sent to him at 9:40 am by Charles Lewis of the National Post to Dr. Ruedy and Dr, Sate noting, "[ am being besieged bye-mails and calls about this, so we need to do something promptly, as there will be stories written today for publication tomorrow," (Ex,65). Again on August [0'\ Dr. Hansen wrote, "I am being besieged by these [citizen complaints and comments I," (Moreover, pages two and three of Dr. Hansen "s three-page e-mail were not produced. (Ex, 45)), Similarly, in his article "A Light on Upstairs?" Dr. Hansen stated, "Somehow the flaws in the 200 1 ~ 2007 U.S, data were advertised on the i ntcrnet and for two days I have been besieged by rants." (Ex 49), On August 11, at 11 :04 am Dr. Hansen apologized to Rc .. lin for a delay in returning his e-mail, stating "sorry. I just noticed this. my box being overfull." (Ex, (6). Nowhere in the documents produced thus far can one find the e-rnails addressed to Dr. Hansen relative to the GISS temperature correction controversy with which he was "besieged.' Nowhere in the production are there any documents relating to the referenced phone calls. 25 202 ·3S8 4355 • • • • .- • I • • • NASA discussion over our t\ugust 27, 2007 rcqu: . .st seeking internal discussions over how and \\ he(her 10 respond 10 the August 24, 2007 request Ior documents surrounding what had surely been \;ASr\ GISS's most heavily covered episode 1Il years. Not only is the production inadequate, but it is inadequate in the context or a production which is long overdue. As the procedural record makes clear, I han: been more than patient and accommodating in awaiting a response (0 my requests, which is now two years overdue, as discussed, al1/C, at 2. Accordingly, NASA must make a responsive production forthwith. VI. CONCLUSION The initial decision should be reversed in part on the grounds specified above. Respectfully submitted, Competitive Enterprise Institute 1899 L Street N. W. 1 :!th Floor Washington, DC 2003() 202.331.2260 Office phone , .' ~.F \sL pli.u.. ( \,t,J .. U; < Christopher C. Horner. Esq. LJ }·Jl 26 More From This UserSkip carouselATI NASA NoticeATI NASA Hansen FOIA lawsuitATI.appeal.decisionATI FOIA Request to UVa from Mann emailsMotion for Summary Judgment by DoJ in CEI vs NASA (2010)CEI response to DoJ motion for summary judgment in CEI vs NASA (2010)DoJ reply to CEI in support of motion for summary judgement in CEI vs NASA (2010)NASA ComplaintGISS FOI Response to AppealFOIA 07-172FOIA 07-175Marshall UVaLinder to NASAJudicial Watch FOIA Request #2Judicial Watch FOIA Request #1Howell v Howell ZarkoFOIA Request #08-04010-186F 5996
Sign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulHorner Appeal by climscifoi0.0 (0)EmbedDownloadRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentMore informationShow less
RelatedATI NASA Noticeby climscifoiATI NASA Hansen FOIA lawsuitby climscifoiATI.appeal.decisionby climscifoiATI FOIA Request to UVa from Mann emailsby climscifoiMotion for Summary Judgment by DoJ in CEI vs NASA (2010)by climscifoiCEI response to DoJ motion for summary judgment in CEI vs NASA (2010)by climscifoiDoJ reply to CEI in support of motion for summary judgement in CEI vs NASA (2010)by climscifoiNASA Complaintby climscifoiGISS FOI Response to Appealby climscifoiFOIA 07-172by climscifoiFOIA 07-175by climscifoiMarshall UVaby climscifoiLinder to NASAby climscifoiJudicial Watch FOIA Request #2by climscifoiJudicial Watch FOIA Request #1by climscifoiHowell v Howell Zarkoby climscifoiMore From climscifoiSkip carouselATI NASA NoticeATI NASA Hansen FOIA lawsuitATI.appeal.decisionATI FOIA Request to UVa from Mann emailsMotion for Summary Judgment by DoJ in CEI vs NASA (2010)CEI response to DoJ motion for summary judgment in CEI vs NASA (2010)DoJ reply to CEI in support of motion for summary judgement in CEI vs NASA (2010)NASA ComplaintGISS FOI Response to AppealFOIA 07-172FOIA 07-175Marshall UVaLinder to NASAJudicial Watch FOIA Request #2Judicial Watch FOIA Request #1Howell v Howell ZarkoFOIA Request #08-04010-186F 5996