Opinion ID: 2997244
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Improper Withholding

Text: The FOIA provides that federal courts with jurisdiction to enjoin an agency from withholding agency records and to order the production of such records only if they are being “improperly withheld from the complainant.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) (emphasis added). ATF urges that we lack jurisdiction under the FOIA to resolve this matter because, without proper funding, it cannot be expected to provide the City access to the information—hence, its withholding is not improper. ATF relies on the case GTE Sylvania, Inc. v. Consumers Union to support this contention. 445 U.S. 375 (1980). In Sylvania, the Supreme Court found that it did not have No. 01-2167 11 jurisdiction to compel disclosure of records when the Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC”) had been enjoined from disclosing the information by another court. Id. at 386-87. In coming to its conclusion, the Court focused on the meaning of “improper” withholding under the framework of 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) and found that the agency’s withholding was not improper due to the injunction. Id. The Court noted that if the CPSC did disclose the information, it would be subject to contempt sanctions from the court that had issued the injunction. To come within the purview of Sylvania, we would need to find that the riders on the appropriations bills denying the use of federal funds are equivalent to an injunction prohibiting an agency from releasing information following a FOIA request. This simply is not the case. Whereas Sylvania’s injunction was a substantive order concerning the release of specific information, the legislation in this case merely creates a procedural hurdle to disclosure of the information. Further, the practical effect of the procedural hurdle is not insurmountable. Access to the specific information requested by the City in the Trace and Multiple Sales databases may be accessed by running a single search and copying the results to disk. Estimates by the City put the time involved at anywhere from a few minutes to a couple of hours. We believe this task is best accomplished through the use of a court-appointed special master, paid for by the City. ATF protests that its employees would still need to assist the special master during the course of the data retrieval and that would require an expenditure of resources; we find these costs are de minimis and do not bar the use of a special master. CalAlmond, 960 F.2d at 108.