Opinion ID: 1027758
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Adequacy of the Vaughn Index

Text: As noted earlier, the Agencies elected to provide a Vaughn index in lieu of producing withheld documents for in camera review by the district court. See Vaughn, 484 F.2d at 827. To substitute for in camera review, a Vaughn index must describe the withheld material with reasonable specificity so that the reviewing court can determine whether the exemption from disclosure applies. Ethyl Corp., 25 F.3d at 1249-50; see also Miscavige v. Internal Revenue Serv., 2 F.3d 366, 367-68 (11th Cir.1993). R & HW argue that the USPTO's Vaughn index is facially inadequate to serve as a substitute for in camera review for two reasons. First, they assert several hundred document entries fail to contain the document's author, recipient, or date, and are therefore insufficient under this Court's analysis in Ethyl Corporation. Second, they contend several hundred document entries contain insufficient summaries of their content so as to notify the district court whether the document properly falls under Exemption 5. [19]
R & HW claim the district court erred in finding the Vaughn index entries were sufficient for at least 334 documents that do not identify their author, recipient, date of origin, or source. We have reviewed both the Vaughn index and Fawcett's declarations regarding the compilation of materials on the index. Almost all of the documents cited by R & HW state n/a in the index column devoted to identifying the employees authoring or receiving the listed document. [20] We agree with R & HW that the Vaughn index documents that fail to include information about their author and recipient, or which fail to provide an explanation that adequately substitutes for this information, do not contain adequate information for the district court to have determined whether they were properly withheld. [21] In Ethyl Corporation, this Court observed that where the description of a document listed in the Vaughn index fails to identify either the author or its recipient, those persons' relationships to the decisionmaking process cannot be identified and it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to perceive how the disclosure of such documents would result in a chilling effect upon the open and frank exchange of opinions within the agency. 25 F.3d at 1250. Similarly, the Agencies have not identified the author or recipient of many documents they claim are protected by the deliberative process privilege. Nor have they provided any information as to the origin or intended target of the challenged documents. Without this information, it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether they fall under Exemption 5. Cf. Ethyl Corp., 25 F.3d at 1250. Ethyl Corporation left open, as do we, the possibility that the district court may be able to determine whether the deliberative process privilege applies without knowing the author and recipient. However, the Agencies' Vaughn index simply states n/a and provides no information regarding who created the document, for whom it was prepared, or to whom it was distributed. Without this contextual information, we cannot determine whether Exemption 5 protects the challenged document from disclosure. [22] In requiring Vaughn index entries to include information as to the author and recipient of the documents, we are mindful that the Agencies may still be able to satisfy their burden for purposes of withholding the document by revising the Vaughn index to correct the deficiencies, by producing the documents for in camera review, or by a combination of methods. However, we find that the challenged entries, which fail to provide any information about the document's author or recipient, are inadequate under Ethyl Corporation. The district court thus erred in finding these challenged Vaughn index entries provided an adequate basis from which to determine that Exemption 5 applied to those documents.
R & HW also assert the district court did not have an adequate factual basis for determining whether several hundred of the Vaughn index entries fell within Exemption 5 because the entries contain inadequate factual descriptions of the documents. They claim these entries provide[ ] little or no factual information about the subject matter of the withheld documents. They assert that the Agencies must provide more information than simply asserting the document contains internal agency deliberations, discussions, or opinions, or that are claimed to be exempt because they are drafts rather than a final decision of the Agencies. R & HW contend that these cursory descriptions do not tell the reader anything about the document, what issue or issues it addresses, or how it relates to the decisional process. Once again, our decision in Ethyl Corporation instructs us as to the level of detail necessary to adequately describe the withheld document. The court in Vaughn . . . directed that the government provide a detailed justification for its exemption and index the documents against the justification, fragmenting the documents into segregable parts. The court emphasized a need for specificity and itemization to permit the adversary process to function. If the index is so vague as to leave the district court with an inability to rule, then some other means of review must be undertaken, such as in camera review. 25 F.3d at 1250. These principles led the Court in Ethyl Corporation to find the Vaughn index provided in that case to be insufficient because entries articulate[d] the Exemption 5 privilege in general terms, using FOIA language, and couple[d] the statement of privilege for each document with a general description of the document. Id. at 1249. Similarly, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has observed: [C]onclusory assertions of privilege will not suffice to carry the Government's burden of proof in defending FOIA cases. A typical line from the index supplied in this case identifies who wrote the memorandum, to whom it was addressed, its date, and a brief description of the memorandum such as Advice on audit of reseller whether product costs can include imported freight charges, discounts, or rental fees. Sections 212.93 and 212.92. . . . That is all we are told, save for the affidavits submitted by the regional counsel which repeat in conclusory terms that all the documents withheld fall within one or another of the exemptions. Such an index is patently inadequate to permit a court to decide whether the exemption was properly claimed. . . . Contrast the index submitted by the agency and described in Mead Data Central, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of the Air Force, 566 F.2d 242 ([D.C.Cir.] 1977), which clearly describes the characteristics of the documents which the agency felt brought them within the exemption claimed, and which was still inadequate to permit the court to determine whether all elements of the privileges were present in each document. Coastal States Gas Corp. v. Dep't of Energy, 617 F.2d 854, 861 (D.C.Cir.1980); see also City of Virginia Beach, Va. v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce, 995 F.2d 1247, 1253-54 (4th Cir.1993) (the burden is on the agency to correlate, with reasonable specificity, materials within a document with applicable exemptions); Mead Data Cent., Inc., 566 F.2d at 251 ([W]hen 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.). Our review leads us to conclude the Agencies' descriptions of many of the challenged documents lack the specificity and particularity required for a proper determination of whether they are exempt from disclosure. This is especially true for the many documents challenged as containing insufficient descriptions for exemption purposes and which also fail to identify their author, recipient, or a date. A few examples elucidate our concerns. Documents 1500 and 1502 are reports or lists that were withheld in full. Their subject is identified as application/control number: 90/006,676 Art Unit: 2645. The only explanation for withholding the documents is that they are draft[s] . . . not used as the final decision. Accordingly, [they are] predecisional and deliberative. Facts contained in the redlined draft are facts selected from a larger body of facts that represent the give and take of internal Agency deliberation, and cannot be released. (J.A. 544.) The same explanation is given for Document 978, which is only identified as pat reg;data and draft document, (J.A. 452), documents 633, 635, and 637, which are only identified as legal;pat reg about the NTP reexamination proceedings, and document 645, which is identified as an e-mail discussion about Blackberry 3rd Party IDS and the NTP reexamination proceedings. (J.A. 394-95.) Entries of this nature do not provide sufficient information as to the contents of the documents to determine whether the deliberative process privilege applies. See Judicial Watch, Inc., 449 F.3d at 152 (finding inadequate statements that a document is a fax or draft internal q & a because the statement does not describe the withheld information [and tell] the court little about the deliberative nature of the information contained in the document in question [or] the information conveyed [therein]). Although the subject is broadly identified as the reexamination proceedings, that topic alone does not bring the material within the scope of Exemption 5. When the entry simply claims that the document is a draft and relates to the NTP Reexamination Proceeding, such as Document 645, the reviewing court does not have any tools to determine what it is a draft of, how it relates to the reexamination process, and what deliberative information it contains that qualifies for protection under Exemption 5. Without revealing any facts about the documents' contents, the Agencies have merely asserted their conclusion that the document is exempt, employing general language associated with the deliberative process privilege. But the entries provide no salient information by which the district court can independently assess the asserted privilege. To find such superficial entries to be sufficient would permit the Agencies to evade judicial review because the district court and we are entirely dependent upon the Agencies' assertions that the documents were appropriately withheld. See Judicial Watch, Inc., 449 F.3d at 147 (Broad, sweeping claims of privilege without reference to the withheld documents would impede judicial review and undermine the functions served by the Vaughn index requirement. The agency must therefore explain why the exemption applies to the document or type of document withheld and may not ignore the contents of the withheld documents.). Such descriptions are inadequate as a matter of law. See Ethyl Corp., 25 F.3d at 1250 (finding inadequate the little information. . . provided by much of the Vaughn index for testing the [agency's] deliberative process privilege claims, leaving the district court and us entirely dependent upon the [agency's] own assertions that the release of the documents in question fall within the claimed Exemption). [23] When examining the adequacy of a Vaughn index entry, the focal point is whether it contains an adequate factual basis to support the claimed exemption. As noted, the Agencies have claimed the deliberative process privilege for all of the challenged documents, and the attorney-client privilege for a few others. Thus, to be adequate, each entry must provide enough facts for the district court to determine that the document was predecisional and deliberative. And the documents also withheld pursuant to attorney-client privilege must contain enough facts for the district court to determine that the document contains confidential communication between a government lawyer and a government entity (the client), in the context of securing a legal opinion, legal services[,] or assistance in legal proceedings, and that the privilege has not been waived. See In re Grand Jury Investigation, 399 F.3d 527, 532-33 (2d Cir.2005); Maine v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 298 F.3d 60, 71 (1st Cir.2002). In sum, we find that the district court erred in finding the Vaughn index adequately described all of the challenged documents listed on it. The Agencies bear the burden of providing sufficient factual information as to the document's nature or content from which the district court can independently assess the applicability of the claimed exemption. See Neely, 208 F.3d at 467 (It is the [agency's] burden to establish for the district court that the denominated documents in fact include information protectable under the Exemption[ ].). R & HW has thus shown that summary judgment was inappropriate because the district court lacked an adequate factual basis to determine whether the claimed exemption applied. We believe the proper remedy is that this case be remanded to the district court for further proceedings, including the determination of which of the challenged Vaughn index documents fail to satisfy the Agencies' burden in a manner consistent with the principles we have expressed. We recognize the burden that our instructions on remand may ultimately impose on the Agencies. We are cognizant that the burden may be particularly heavy on an agency when the request for documents was of the magnitude represented in the case at bar. In that regard, we do not require that the descriptive information be so detailed that it would serve to undermine the important deliberative processes protected by Exemption 5. We also note that the district court's assessment of the adequacy of descriptive information must be given appropriate respect, particularly in close calls. To do otherwise would encourage unnecessary remands and subsequent appeals on issues that, while important, are also collateral in nature. Thus, our remand is not intended to drive either the district court or the Agencies to distraction, but simply to provide a non-conclusory agency declaration that will enable the district court to properly perform its statutory task. [24] Accordingly, we hold that the district court erred in finding the Vaughn index contained adequate descriptive information to determine whether the challenged documents were properly withheld in whole or in part. We reverse the award of summary judgment as to the documents R & HW challenge on adequacy grounds for the claim of exemption and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We affirm the district court's award of summary judgment as to the adequacy of the Vaughn index entries for the documents R & HW does not challenge.