Opinion ID: 8312825
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The information was properly withheld under FOIA Exemption 5.

Text: FOIA Exemption 5 protects from disclosure inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party ... in litigation with the agency. 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(5). 3 A document may be properly withheld under Exemption 5 only if: (1) its source is a government agency, and (2) it falls within the ambit of a privilege against discovery under judicial standards that would govern litigation against the agency that holds it. U.S. Dep't of Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protective Ass'n , 532 U.S. 1 , 8, 121 S.Ct. 1060 , 149 L.Ed.2d 87 (2001). The exemption encompasses the deliberative process privilege, which covers documents reflecting advisory opinions, recommendations, and deliberations that are part of a process by which Government decisions and policies are formulated. Id. at 2 , 121 S.Ct. 1060 , citing N.L.R.B. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. , 421 U.S. 132 , 150, 95 S.Ct. 1504 , 44 L.Ed.2d 29 (1975). Its purpose is to enhance 'the quality of agency decisions' by protecting open and frank discussion among those who make them within the Government. Id. at 8-9, 121 S.Ct. 1060 (citations omitted), quoting Sears , 421 U.S. at 151 , 95 S.Ct. 1504 .
The EPA's declarant avers that the material withheld includes emails and attachments sent between staff at EPA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the United States Geological Survey, and Great Lakes Environmental Center (GLEC), an EPA contractor. Gallagher Decl. ¶ 20. Plaintiff argues that the communications with the outside consultant, GLEC, do not satisfy the threshold requirement for Exemption 5 that the records be intra- or inter-agency records. Pl.'s Cross-Mot. at 20-21. Under the consultant corollary to Exemption 5, agency records authored by non-agency entities can be protected if those records were solicited by a U.S. agency in the course of its deliberative process. Pub. Emps. for Envtl. Responsibility v. U.S. Section, Int'l Boundary & Water Comm'n, U.S.-Mexico , 740 F.3d 195 , 201 (D.C. Cir. 2014), citing McKinley v. Bd. of Governors of Fed. Reserve Sys. , 647 F.3d 331 , 336 (D.C. Cir. 2011). However, the doctrine is confined to situations where an outside consultant did not have its own interests in mind. Id. at 201-02. To fall within the consultant corollary, defendant must establish that GLEC did not represent its own interests or the interest of any other client when it advised the EPA. McKinley, 647 F.3d at 336 . Plaintiff acknowledges that the consultant corollary to Exemption 5 protects communications with outside consultants under some circumstances, but it contends that the exception is inapplicable here because EPA has not established that GLEC's only obligations are to truth and its sense of what good judgment calls for. Pl.'s Cross-Mot. at 21, quoting Klamath , 532 U.S. at 11 , 121 S.Ct. 1060 . Plaintiff insists that even a cursory glance at [GLEC's] website makes clear that the organization represents the interests of the regulated community, id. , and it quotes the company's website which states that it provides services that help power generation and industrial forms attain [Clean Water Act] regulatory compliance. Id. at 21 n.3, quoting www.glec.com (last viewed April 9, 2018). Based on that sworn declaration, the Court is satisfied that EPA has met its burden of establishing that its outside consultant did not have interests of its own, or of its other clients, when it advised the agency on the Final Cadmium Report. Plaintiff's argument that EPA provides no evidence ... that a conflict of interest certification is sufficient to meet its burden of proof required for the consultant corollary theory, Pl.'s Reply in Supp. of its Mot. for Summ. [Dkt. # 23] (Pl.'s Cross-Reply)  at 11, is both conclusory and contrary to the substance of Stall worth's declaration which expressly attests to the lack of a conflict of interest, even excerpting the binding provision of the EPA and GLEC contract. See Stallworth Decl. ¶ 4. 4 Because there is no indication in the record that GLEC represented its own interests, or outside interests, during its consulting work for EPA, and there is no evidence of bad faith, the Court finds that the agency's detailed declarations justify withholding its deliberative communications with GLEC under Exemption 5. See Military Audit , 656 F.2d at 738 . B. Defendant established that its withholdings, including some factual material, are deliberative under FOIA Exemption 5. The deliberative process privilege protects agency documents that are both predecisional and deliberative. Judicial Watch , 449 F.3d at 151 , citing Coastal States Gas Corp. v. Dep't of Energy , 617 F.2d 854 , 866 (D.C. Cir. 1980). A document is predecisional if it was 'prepared in order to assist an agency decisionmaker in arriving at his decision,' rather than to support a decision already made. Petroleum Info. Corp. v. U.S. Dep't of Interior , 976 F.2d 1429 , 1434 (D.C. Cir. 1992), quoting Renegotiation Bd. v. Grumman Aircraft , 421 U.S. 168 , 184, 95 S.Ct. 1491 , 44 L.Ed.2d 57 (1975). And a document is deliberative if it reflects the give-and-take of the consultative process. Id. , quoting Coastal States Gas , 617 F.2d at 866 . As noted earlier, the deliberative process privilege covers documents reflecting advisory opinions, recommendations, and deliberations that are part of a process by which Government decisions and policies are formulated. Klamath , 532 U.S. at 2 , 121 S.Ct. 1060 . The EPA's declarant avers that the information withheld is both predecisional and deliberative: The withheld information is pre-decisional because it was prepared for the purpose of, and, in fact, contributed to, assisting EPA decision-making regarding the review, analysis, and synthesis of information relevant to the 2016 Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Cadmium. The withheld information is deliberative because it reflects the personal opinions and thoughts of EPA staff working to develop the document for final, official publication, and does not reflect the information, analysis, or preliminary conclusions ultimately selected for inclusion in that document. Gallagher Decl. ¶ 23; see also id. ¶ 27. EPA further asserts that to the extent any of the withheld information contains facts, the information is inextricably intertwined with the deliberative discussions concerning the Agency's ongoing development of its policies. See, e.g., Vaughn Index at 23.  Several of the individual Vaughn Index entries also assert that: [A]ny factual information contained in the email chain reflects the author's selection of facts from a broad range of available information to advise Agency decision-makers during the deliberative process concerning the deliberative process described above. The selection of those facts was an integral part of the deliberations, and the factual information contained therein is inextricably intertwined with the deliberative discussion concerning this issue. Id. Additionally, the EPA's declarant avers that disclosure of this information would impede candid discussions within EPA concerning the scientific research and analysis authorized by the Clean Water Act, and that releasing the agency's reasons, rationales, and conclusions that were not ultimately used in the Final Cadmium Report could cause public confusion. Gallagher Decl. ¶ 24. Plaintiff argues that many of the disputed records include scientific data, research, and statistical figures, and that such plain account[s] of factual information, fall outside the scope of the deliberative process privilege. Pl.'s Cross-Mot. at 15, quoting Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Marine Corps , No. 00-2387, 2005 WL 3262901 , at , 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50151 at  (D.D.C. Sept. 19, 2005). To the extent plaintiff is arguing that factual information is categorically excluded from the deliberative process privilege, it is wrong. While it is true that factual information generally must be disclosed while opinions are generally protected under the deliberative process privilege, Petroleum Info. , 976 F.2d at 1434 , the D.C. Circuit has cautioned against a mechanical[ ] application of the fact/opinion distinction. Mapother v. Dep't of Justice , 3 F.3d 1533 , 1537 (D.C. Cir. 1993). The fact/opinion distinction ... is not always dispositive; in some instances, 'the disclosure of even purely factual material may so expose the deliberative process within an agency' that the material is appropriately held privileged. Petroleum Info. , 976 F.2d at 1434 , quoting Mead Data , 566 F.2d at 256 . At bottom, the privilege serves to protect the deliberative process itself, not merely documents containing deliberative material. Mapother , 3 F.3d at 1537 . In Mapother , the D.C. Circuit analyzed whether the deliberative process privilege protected factual material compiled by the Office of Special Investigations (OSI) to assist the Attorney General in deciding whether to bar a former Austrian President from entering the United States due to reports that he had engaged in war crimes as a Nazi officer. 3 F.3d at 1535-37 . The FOIA requestors sought portions of a report submitted by OSI to the Attorney General as well as the historical records underlying the report. Id. at 1536-37 . Because the factual material was assembled through an exercise of judgment in extracting pertinent material from a vast number of documents for the benefit of an official called upon to take discretionary action, the Court held that the Department properly withheld the product of this process. Id. at 1539 . The Court observed that as part of the deliberative process, [t]he [OSI] staff was to cull the relevant documents, extract pertinent facts, organize them to suit a specific purpose, and to identify the significant issues they encountered along the way. Id. at 1538 . Because this task required exercises of discretion and judgment calls and was not essentially technical, the Court held that the information was protected under Exemption 5. Id. at 1539 , quoting Petroleum Info. , 976 F.2d at 1437-38 .  In Ancient Coin Collectors Guild v. United States Department of State , the D.C. Circuit held that the legitimacy of withholding does not turn on whether the material is purely factual in nature or whether it is already in the public domain, but rather on whether the selection or organization of facts is part of an agency's deliberative process. 641 F.3d 504 , 513 (D.C. Cir. 2011). The Court found in that case that the State Department properly withheld factual summaries contained in an advisory report related to import restrictions because the factual summaries were culled by the Committee from the much larger universe of facts presented to it, and reflected an exercise of judgment as to what issues are most relevant to the predecisional findings and recommendations. Id. In other words, the organization and presentation of the factual information was not essentially technical. Ultimately, [t]o fall within the deliberative process privilege, materials must bear on the formulation or exercise of agency policy-oriented judgment . Petroleum Info. , 976 F.2d at 1435 (emphasis in original). Based on its review of the agency's declaration, the Vaughn Index, and its in camera inspection, the Court finds that the material is deliberative and properly withheld under FOIA Exemption 5. Contrary to plaintiff's assertion that the withheld records consist of plain account[s] of the factual information, Pl.'s Cross-Mot. at 15, the information was instead culled from a broad range of available information, Vaughn Index at 23, and it reflects the give-and-take of the consultative process. Petroleum Info. , 976 F.2d at 1434 . For example, the withheld material described in the Vaughn Index on pages 15, 23, 31, 32, 36, 37, is deliberative because it contains staff analyses and opinions which are related to the issue of whether to use a 1-hour or 24-hour averaging duration, which is the duration over which water samples are averaged for comparison. See, e.g., Vaughn Index at 23. These documents also contain draft responses to public comments and work planning discussions. The limited factual information that appears in these documents is selected, organized, and presented in such a way that requires the exercise of discretion and judgment calls, and does not amount to an essentially technical recitation of scientific data or other facts. Mapother , 3 F.3d at 1538-39 . The withheld documents covering other topics are also deliberative. For example, the document described in the Vaughn Index on page 27 contains staff discussions about public comments ... related to a specific organism, H. Azteca. Vaughn Index at 27. While this email chain contains some factual information, it is in the context of a discussion on underlying scientific assumptions, and the factual information is inextricably intertwined with those deliberative discussions. Id. ; see also Vaughn Index at 8 (same). Plaintiff points out that under the Clean Water Act, EPA is required to use the latest scientific knowledge to determine the cadmium water quality criteria, and that this is a far cry from the 'exercise[s] of discretion and judgment calls' that are typically protected by the deliberative process privilege. Pl.'s Cross-Mot. at 15-16, quoting Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. EPA , 279 F.Supp.3d 121 , 151 (D.D.C. 2017). While the ultimate decision must be grounded in science, that does not mean that there is no place in the decision-making process for discretion and judgment calls. As defendant's Vaughn Index and declaration demonstrate, throughout the development of the Final Cadmium Report, staff had to make decisions about how to respond to public comments, which content to include in the final report, and  how to communicate the information; these decisions necessarily involved the sharing of opinions, analysis, and recommendations that did not make it into the final report. The documents reviewed by the Court did not contain pages upon pages of technical scientific data. The facts that appeared in the documents were inextricably intertwined with the deliberative discussions and process itself. Therefore, the material was properly withheld under Exemption 5, and the Court finds that disclosure of these deliberative communications would hamper open and frank discussion within the agency. Klamath , 532 U.S. at 9 , 121 S.Ct. 1060 . C. EPA released all reasonably segregable portions of exempt documents. FOIA expressly requires agencies to extract [a]ny reasonably segregable portion of a record and provide it to the requesting party after deletion of the portions which are exempt. 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b). [I]t has long been a rule in this Circuit that non-exempt portions of a document must be disclosed unless they are inextricably intertwined with exempt portions. Mead Data , 566 F.2d at 260 . In order to demonstrate that all reasonably segregable material has been released, the agency must provide a 'detailed justification' for its non-segregability, although the agency is not required to provide so much detail that the exempt material would effectively be disclosed. Johnson v. Exec. Office for U.S. Attorneys , 310 F.3d 771 , 776 (D.C. Cir. 2002), citing Mead Data , 566 F.2d at 261 . Plaintiff again argues that many of the records withheld in whole or in part ... contain[ ] factual information, and that [t]he only explanation given for why factual portions of these records were not produced is that they each contain facts that were considered in making a final decision in this scientific analysis. Pl.'s Cross-Mot. at 19. Plaintiff insists that such rationale does not support the agency's failure to segregate out and release non-privileged information within these records. Id. But as the Court explained, the fact that some information is factual does not categorically exclude the application of Exemption 5. See Ancient Coin , 641 F.3d at 513. Moreover, EPA's declarant averred that the agency conducted a line-by-line review and released all reasonably segregable, non-exempt information to [p]laintiff. Gallagher Decl. ¶ 29. The agency also maintains that [t]o the extent there are facts in the withheld information, those facts are an integral part of the deliberations, and the factual information contained therein is [inextricably] intertwined with the deliberative discussions contained in the documents. Id. The Vaughn Index supplied by EPA provides a document-by-document justification for each of the 67 records in dispute, describing the deliberative processes involved and justifying the agency's position that no reasonably segregable material could be released. See, e.g., Vaughn Index at 8 ([A]ny factual information contained in the email chain reflects the author's selection of facts from a broad range of available information to advise the Agency decision-makers during the deliberative process concerning the deliberative process.... The selection of those facts was an integral part of the deliberations, and the factual information contained therein is inextricably intertwined with the deliberative discussion concerning this issue.). And as the Court noted, the facts contained in the documents it reviewed in camera are exempt because the factual material is inextricably intertwined with deliberative discussions, Mead Data , 566 F.2d at 260 , or it was selected and organized in a manner that  reflects the deliberative process itself. See Ancient Coin , 641 F.3d at 513 ; Mapother , 3 F.3d at 1535-37 . Therefore, the Court is satisfied that EPA has met the FOIA requirement that all reasonably segregable materials be released after appropriately asserting an exemption.