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

Heading: EPA's Vaughn Index is sufficient.

Text: Finally, plaintiff challenges the adequacy of defendant's Vaughn Index. Pl.'s Cross-Mot. at 22-28. Plaintiff argues that the agency's justifications ... are vague, repetitive, and fail to establish that EPA has met its burden in claiming the disputed information falls within a FOIA exemption. Id. at 25. In support of its argument, plaintiff contends that several Vaughn Index entries are deficient because they do not establish the function and significance of a record but instead provide conclusory recitations of the elements of the deliberative process privilege test and vague assertions of harm. Id. (citing the dozens of allegedly inadequate Vaughn Index entries). As noted previously, when an agency seeks to withhold information it must provide a relatively detailed justification, specifically identifying the reasons why a particular exemption is relevant and correlating those claims with the particular part of a withheld document to which they apply. Mead Data , 566 F.2d at 251 . An agency can carry that burden by submitting declarations and/or a Vaughn Index. See Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Secret Serv. , 726 F.3d 208 , 215 (D.C. Cir. 2013). Contrary to plaintiff's characterization, most of defendant's Vaughn Index entries for the 67 records in dispute provide enough detail to enable the Court to determine whether Exemption 5 applies. For example, the description on page 27 of the Vaughn Index states: The withheld information is protected under Exemption 5's deliberative process privilege because it contains internal agency discussions reflecting staff analyses, advice, and recommendations relating to EPA's then ongoing review of public comments and evaluation of the public comment process concerning how to present data related to H. Azteca [a specific organism] in the 2016 Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Cadmium. Vaughn Index at 27. That description provides the function and significance of the record because it explains that the document was used to develop a response to public comments concerning a specific organism. Elsewhere in the entry, defendant lists the authors, recipients, their agencies, length of the document, date, and the potential harm of disclosure. Id. This information is enough for the government to justify its withholdings. See also Vaughn Index at 47 ([D]iscussing EPA's Cadmium Criteria Document as it relates to corals which reflect[s] EPA and NOAA staff analyses and opinions relating to possible content for the [Final Cadmium Report].); id. at 30 (describing document which relates to additions to a salmonid study to be considered for inclusion and reflects analysis and opinion on what content to include and how to present the discussed content in the final report); id. at 43 (draft responses to public comments ... related to the Endangered Species Act (ESA)). And, in any event, the Court has based its opinion on an in camera review in addition to the Vaughn Index.