Opinion ID: 171697
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Documents Authored by Mr. Hess

Text: The government claims that the Hess documents were properly withheld under Exemption 5 of FOIA. We review de novo an agency's decision not to disclose records pursuant to a FOIA request. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B); Anderson v. Dep't of Health and Human Servs., 907 F.2d 936, 941 (10th Cir.1990). When reviewing whether documents were properly withheld pursuant to an exemption, we note that exemptions are to be narrowly circumscribed. Trentadue v. Integrity Comm., 501 F.3d 1215, 1226 (10th Cir.2007). Furthermore, the federal agency resisting disclosure bears the burden of justifying withholding. Id. (citing Alirez v. NLRB, 676 F.2d 423, 425 (10th Cir.1982)). The district court held that the Hess documents fell outside the scope of Exemption 5. Bd. of County Comm'rs of Kane County, 2007 WL 2156613, at -12 & n. 6 (referring to Vaughn index documents 14, 16, and 20). The district court relied on Klamath Water Users which dealt with the question of whether tribal communications with the Department of the Interior fall under Exemption 5 as intra-agency communications and thus are not subject to FOIA disclosure requirements. See Klamath Water Users, 532 U.S. at 11-16, 121 S.Ct. 1060. In Klamath, after recognizing that Exemption 5 extends to government agency communications with paid consultants, the Court declined to analogize tribal communications to consultant communications. Id. at 11-12, 121 S.Ct. 1060. It did so because, while consultants may be similar to agency personnel, the Tribes are self-advocates at the expense of others seeking benefits inadequate to satisfy everyone. Id. at 12, 121 S.Ct. 1060. The Court then made it clear that the Tribes were water claimants in competition with non-tribal claimants for a finite supply of water. Id. at 13, 121 S.Ct. 1060. The district court considered Mr. Hess analogous to a non-governmental consultant, notwithstanding that he was not competing for a grazing permit or representing anyone who was. [1] According to the district court, Mr. Hess's scholarly work in the field and his advocacy for a market-based approach to this issue indicate that he has deep-seated views, and thus is not a disinterested expert. Bd. of County Comm'rs of Kane County, 2007 WL 2156613, at . However, the record clearly establishes that Mr. Hess was a paid consultant (contractor) to the government. See App. 210-14 (Vaughn index noting that the withheld documents were created by a contractor at the request of the government); see also Bd. of County Comm'rs of Kane County, 2007 WL 2156613, at  (noting that Mr. Hess was a paid consultant hired by the BLM). For purposes of this analysis, Mr. Hess functioned akin to an agency employee. We find no support for a limitation on paid consultants that they must lack deep-seated views. The fact that they may derive intellectual satisfaction from consulting and possible adoption of their views does not mean that they have a personal or economic stake in the outcome. It would be unusual for an agency to seek out the advice of consultants who lack professional standing or who have not worked in the field, let alone those who have not published their views in their areas of expertise. See, e.g., Nat'l Inst. of Military Justice v. United States Dep't of Defense, 512 F.3d 677, 683 (D.C.Cir.2008) (comments by non-governmental lawyers solicited by the Department of Defense for their experience and qualifications were intra-agency), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 775, ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (2008). The fact that some of those consultants may have strong and well-developed views on public policy does not disqualify their advice from being treated as confidential intra-agency communications under the deliberative process privilege. A decision to the contrary would impinge on agency discretion to seek advice. Therefore, Mr. Hess's reports to the BLM were properly withheld pursuant to Exemption 5, and the district court erred in concluding otherwise. AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part.