Opinion ID: 2776675
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The withheld documents are all predecisional.

Text: To fit within Exemption 5, the Department must demonstrate that the communications were both predecisional and deliberative. Providence Journal, 981 F.2d at 557 (internal quotation omitted). Right to Life argues that the documents are not deliberative only because they are not predecisional, so we limit our inquiry to whether they are indeed predecisional. A document is predecisional if the agency can: (1) pinpoint the specific agency decision to which the document correlates, (2) establish that its author prepared the document for the purpose of assisting the agency official charged with making the agency decision, and (3) verify that the document precedes, in temporal sequence, the decision to which it relates. Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The dispute here centers on the temporal sequence of Department documents and decisions, and on identifying the decisions to which the particular documents relate. The following chronology outlines the relevant decisional timeline. On August 8, 2011, there was an e-mail chain (Vaughn index category 11) between Department employees and Office of General Counsel attorneys regarding whether the Department could legally issue a replacement grant. On August 9, Secretary Sebelius was briefed on the issue. Subsequently, on August 10, the White House was also briefed on this alternative plan. Right to Life -18- asserts that this briefing constituted approval from the White House. Right to Life cites as evidence of White House approval an informal e-mail stating, [t]he WH was briefed and they are getting down to pennies and nickels. On August 12, there was an e-mail chain (Vaughn index category 15) discussing a draft document regarding funding for the replacement grant. On August 18, there was another e-mail chain addressing funding for the replacement grant (Vaughn index category 18). Finally, on August 19, OASH's executive officer signed a blank line indicating Approve underneath the heading Decision on the Sole Source Justification memorandum. On September 28, 2011, three out of five members of the New Hampshire Executive Council filed a letter protesting the Department's decision with the Government Accountability Office (GAO), carbon copying Kathleen Sebelius, Department Secretary. In a letter dated October 5, 2011, the GAO declined to review the Executive Council members' protest for lack of jurisdiction. The Department later decided not to provide its own response. Right to Life contends that the decision to directly award Title X funds to Planned Parenthood was made at the White House briefing on August 10, 2011. If this were true, all pertinent documents created after that date would be postdecisional, and thus not exempt from disclosure under Exemption 5. See id. The record, however, does not support Right to Life's -19- contention. On its face, the e-mail Right to Life cites as evidence of White House approval indicates that a decision, while perhaps close, had not yet been finalized. The phrase getting down to pennies and nickels plainly suggests a pending decision, not a final decision for Exemption 5 purposes. That leaves August 19--the date the OASH executive signed the approval line on the Sole Source Justification memorandum--as the date the decision was made to proceed with a direct award process.9 We therefore reject Right to Life's argument that Vaughn index categories 15–16 and 18–19, all created prior to August 19 were post-decisional documents.10 We turn next to the documents covered by Vaughn index categories 23–25 and 33. All of these documents post-date the August 19 decision to proceed with a non-competitive sole-source grant process. Therefore, Right to Life argues, they are not predecisional. The problem with this argument is that there were 9 Throughout its brief, Right to Life touts the title of the Sole Source Justification memorandum, and suggests that it indicates that the substance of the memorandum itself is a post hoc justification of a decision that had been made several days earlier. Read as a whole, the document's substance makes clear that it is a recommendation letter, seeking approval from a superior: I recommend that you approve this request for a sole source replacement grant to Planned Parenthood of Northern New England. 10 Categories 16 and 19 are undated, but, given their content, necessarily predate the August 19 decision. Category 16 covers drafts of a rationale for the grant funding amount. Category 19 covers early drafts of the Sole Source Justification memorandum. -20- other relevant decisions made on or after August 19, including: (1) the Department's decision on September 9 to publicly announce its intent to issue the grant award to Planned Parenthood, and (2) the Department's decision to not provide a separate response to New Hampshire's protest of that direct award. Vaughn index categories 23–25 relate to and pre-date the September 9 public announcement that the Department intended to directly award a grant to Planned Parenthood. These documents deal with the Department's decision of how and what to communicate to the public, which is a decision in and of itself. Vaughn index categories 23–25 are not post-decisional. Right to Life simply misidentifies the decision to which these documents relate. Similarly, the documents included in Vaughn index category 33 involve communications between Department employees and attorneys relating to whether the Department should also respond to the New Hampshire Executive Council's protest. This e-mail chain necessarily predates any decision by the Department to withhold a separate response to the protest. We are satisfied that the Department appropriately met its burden for withholding these documents under Exemption 5.