Opinion ID: 1436892
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Vaughn Indices

Text: To help determine whether a governmental agency has discharged its burden under FOIA, Vaughn indices may be used. Crancer v. Dep't of Justice, 999 F.2d 1302, 1305 (8th Cir.1993). The Vaughn court recognized the problems associated with FOIA requests for claimed-exempt documentation, including the requesting party's inability to advocate its position in light of its lack of knowledge and the court's difficulty reviewing massive documentation. Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820, 826 (D.C.Cir.1973). Thus, Vaughn indices serve two purposes: First, to ensure an effectively helpless party's right to information is not submerged beneath governmental obfuscation and mischaracterization and second, to permit the court system effectively and efficiently to evaluate the factual nature of disputed information. Id. This Court has held that a proper Vaughn index provides a specific factual description of each document sought by the FOIA requester. Specifically, such an index includes a general description of each document's contents, including information about the document's creation, such as date, time, and place. For each document, the exemption claimed by the government is identified, and an explanation as to why the exemption applies to the document in question is provided. Crancer, 999 F.2d at 1306 (internal citations and quotations omitted). Such an index allows both the district court and the requesting party to evaluate the decision to withhold records and ensure compliance with FOIA. Barney v. IRS, 618 F.2d 1268, 1272 (8th Cir.1980). Here, the Vaughn index contained all necessary identifying information and stated the applicable exemption. Although the index itself failed to explain why the exemption applied to each document, the affidavits provided in conjunction with the index indicated that the documents were deliberative  involving give-and-take, critiques, comments, and recommendations by members of the two groups. Generally, a more substantial Vaughn index  one that provides for each document requested a specific explanation as to why an exemption applies  is preferable to a bare bones index. Even so, in camera review of the documentation in this case was not necessary. Barney, 618 F.2d at 1272. In Barney, we held that in camera inspection should be limited as it is `contrary to the traditional judicial role of deciding issues in an adversarial context upon evidence openly produced in court.' Id. (quoting Cox v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 576 F.2d 1302, 1311 (8th Cir.1978)). If the material is fairly described and the reason for nondisclosure is adequately stated and supported by the law, the agency's position should be upheld without in camera inspection. Id. The sworn declarations from Mr. Minear and Dr. Goldman provide adequate additional information to explain why the documents should be exempt. See Miller v. U.S. Dep't of State, 779 F.2d at 1387 (holding that an agency carries its burden of proof by providing affidavits to explain why documents are subject to an exemption). Boilerplate or conclusory affidavits, standing alone, are insufficient to show that no genuine issue of fact exists as to the applicability of a FOIA exemption. Miller v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 13 F.3d at 263. Even so, a governmental agency can properly conclude that open and frank intra-agency discussion would be `chilled' by public disclosure of [a document] generated as part of the agency's deliberative process. Missouri, ex rel. Shorr v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 147 F.3d 708, 711 (8th Cir.1998). The affidavits supplied in this case discuss the UMRSFFS process and the nature of the communications between parties. Mr. Minear's affidavit describes the basis for the exemption: These communications are exempt from disclosure under Exemption 5 because they are predecisional and part of the deliberative process. They involve the give-and-take that is inherent in such a study process. The documents consist of the TAG members freely critiquing the work of the Corps and other TAG members as the TAG worked over the years to advise the Government regarding the best study process. Release of these documents could deter not only such group members from speaking freely in the future, but also deter Government agencies from empanelling such groups of experts.... (Minnear Aff. p. 3). Considering the identifying information supplied in the Vaughn index and the additional information provided in the affidavits, we cannot conclude that the Vaughn index was, on its face, inadequate under Crancer. 999 F.2d at 1306.