Court Opinion

ID: 9785487
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 22:01:12.442333+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:42:32.778105
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

                               )
BUZZFEED, INC.,                )
                               )
           Plaintiff,          )
                               )
      v.                       )                Case No. 18-cv-1556 (TSC)
                               )
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et )
al.,
                               )
           Defendants.         )
                               )

                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION

       Plaintiff BuzzFeed, Inc. has sued the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and

the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) (collectively, “the Government”) under the Freedom of

Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (“FOIA”). BuzzFeed seeks to compel production of certain

documents related to BOP’s acquisition and use of lethal injection drugs, and the Government

has withheld all responsive documents pursuant to various FOIA exemptions. Before the court

are the parties’ respective motions for summary judgment: Defs’ Motion, ECF No. 35 and Pl’s

Motion, ECF No. 36. For the reasons explained below, both parties’ motions will be GRANTED

in part and DENIED in part.

                                     I.     BACKGROUND 1

A.     Submission and Referral of Plaintiff’s FOIA Request

1
  “Plaintiff does not dispute, for the purposes of summary judgment, Defendants’ statement of
facts,” except as to certain legal conclusions regarding whether (i) “withheld information is
‘identifying’ if company names are redacted,” (ii) that certain records contain “no segregable
factual information,” and (iii) “release of information with company names redacted would
reveal who the companies are.” Pl’s Statement of Material Facts, ECF No. 36-2.
                                          Page 1 of 14
       On August 25, 2015, BuzzFeed reporter Christopher McDaniel submitted a FOIA request

to DOJ requesting that BOP provide all records related to the Government’s use of lethal

injection drugs. See Decl. of Kara Christenson ¶ 12, ECF No. 35-4. McDaniel sought the

following records, from the prior two years:

         1. Emails pertaining to an effort to obtain lethal injection chemicals;
         2. Emails pertaining to an attempt to select a drug for use in lethal injections;
         3. Emails in which sodium thiopental, midazolam, pentobarbital were discussed;
         4. All records indicating the federal government’s current inventory of execution
         drugs;
         5. All records indicating the source of all execution drugs in the federal
         government’s current inventory;
         6. All records indicating the person or persons that authorized the purchase(s) of
         all execution drugs in the federal government’s current inventory;
         7. All email messages between the Department and any supplier or potential
         supplier of execution drugs;
         8. All email messages between the Department and the Bureau of Prisons
         regarding execution drugs.

Id. ¶ 12. The request was referred to BOP which determined that all responsive documents

should be withheld in full under FOIA exemptions 5, 6, 7(A), 7(C), 7(E) and 7(F). Id. ¶¶ 13, 15.

On May 10, 2017, BOP informed McDaniel of its release determination and advised him of his

right to appeal to the Office of Information and Policy (“OIP”). Id. ¶ 16. On July 7, 2017,

McDaniel filed an appeal with OIP, and on September 19, 2017, OIP agreed with BOP’s

determination and concluded that the information was properly withheld pursuant to Exemption

7(A). Id. ¶¶ 17–18.

B.     BOP’s Search and Processing of Records

       BOP uses a Novell GroupWise email system for internal and external staff email

communication, and GroupWise emails are archived by the Netmail Email Archive System

                                            Page 2 of 14
(“Netmail”) which saves emails in a SML file format. See id. ¶ 22. Typically, emails are

retained for seven years, and emails flagged as trash are retained for forty-five-days. Id.

       BOP used key words from McDaniel’s FOIA request and identified staff who were

involved in “obtaining, selecting, or purchasing lethal injection substances” during the relevant

time frame, including staff at the North Central Regional Office who oversee the United States

Penitentiary located in Terre Haute, Indiana (“USP Terre Haute”), where federal executions are

performed. ECF No. 35-2 at 4 (citing ECF No. 35-4 ¶ 25). BOP then conducted an email search

of eight custodians (current and retired employees), from August 25, 2013 through August 25,

2015, using the search terms: “lethal injection,” “execute,” “execution,” thiopental,”

“midazolam,” and “pentobarbital.” ECF No. 35-4 ¶¶ 12 n.3, 26. It found that 154 of the records

located were responsive and seventy-five were duplicative. Id. ¶ 36.

       In addition, BOP conducted a search for responsive non-email records. It determined that

during the relevant time, lethal injection substances

         would have been purchased by USP Terre Haute, and stored in locked space at
         that facility, to which only specific staff would have had access. Documents
         reflecting the inventory or purchase of such substances during the relevant time
         frame would have been maintained in a locked filing cabinet located at USP
         Terre Haute, to which only specified staff had access. Additionally, pursuant to
         BOP policy, any purchasing documents generated during the relevant time frame
         would have been forwarded for budgeting purposes to the Financial
         Management Department at NCRO, and would have been maintained in a
         locked filing cabinet to which only specified staff had access.

ECF No. 35-2 at 5 (citing ECF No. 35-4 ¶¶ 41–42). Accordingly, BOP staff at USP Terre Haute

and the NCRO Financial Management Department searched for non-email records and found

eleven responsive non-duplicative records. ECF No. 35-4 ¶¶ 46–47.

       Since BuzzFeed filed this case on June 29, 2018, the parties have narrowed their dispute;

Plaintiffs no longer challenge the Government’s non-disclosure of certain documents—withheld

pursuant to Exemptions 6, 7(c), 7(f), and attorney-client and attorney work product privileges
                                           Page 3 of 14
under Exemption 5—and the Government is no longer relying on Exemption 7(A). See Pl’s

Reply, ECF No. 41 at 1; Defs’ Notice, ECF No. 43 at 1.

                                      II.    LEGAL STANDARD

          “FOIA provides a ‘statutory right of public access to documents and records’ held by

federal government agencies.” Citizens for Resp. & Ethics in Wash. v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 602

F. Supp. 2d 121, 123 (D.D.C. 2009) (quoting Pratt v. Webster, 673 F.2d 408, 413 (D.C. Cir.

1982)). It requires federal agencies to comply with requests for records unless such “information

is exempted under [one of nine] clearly delineated statutory [exemptions].” Id. (citation

omitted); see also 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(a)–(b). “The agency bears the burden of justifying the

application of any exemptions, ‘which are exclusive and must be narrowly construed.’” Ctr. for

Investigative Reporting v. U.S Dep’t of the Interior, No. 18-cv-1599, 2020 WL 1695175, at * 3

(Apr. 7, 2020) (quoting Mobley v. CIA, 806 F.3d 568, 580 (D.C. Cir. 2015)).

          Summary judgment in FOIA cases may be based solely on information provided in an

agency’s supporting affidavits or declarations if they are “relatively detailed and nonconclusory.”

SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197, 1200 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (citation omitted). These

declarations are “accorded a presumption of good faith, which cannot be rebutted by purely

speculative claims about the existence and discoverability of other documents.” Id. (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted). “FOIA cases typically and appropriately are decided on

motions for summary judgment.” Georgacarakos v. FBI, 908 F. Supp. 2d 176, 180 (D.D.C.

2012) (quoting Defenders of Wildlife v. U.S. Border Patrol, 623 F. Supp. 2d 83, 87 (D.D.C.

2009)).

          In FOIA litigation, as in all civil cases, summary judgment is appropriate only when the

pleadings and declarations demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the

                                            Page 4 of 14
moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,

477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). In reviewing a motion for summary judgment

under FOIA, the court must view the facts in the light most favorable to the requester. See

Weisberg v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 745 F.2d 1476, 1485 (D.C. Cir. 1984). But unlike most other

litigation, the “burden is on the [defendant] agency to sustain its action”—not the plaintiff

challenging the defendant’s compliance with FOIA. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B); see Mil. Audit

Project v. Casey, 656 F.2d 724, 738 (D.C. Cir. 1981). Nonetheless, “[t]o successfully challenge

an agency’s showing that it complied with the FOIA, the plaintiff must come forward with

‘specific facts’ demonstrating that there is a genuine issue with respect to whether the agency has

improperly withheld . . . records.” Span v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 696 F. Supp. 2d 113, 119

(D.D.C. 2010) (quoting U.S. Dep’t of Justice v. Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. 136, 142 (1989)).

       An agency’s decision to “withhold or disclose information under FOIA are reviewed de

novo.” Jud. Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Serv., 297 F. Supp. 2d 252, 256 (D.D.C. 2004).

                                         III.    ANALYSIS

       At this stage of the litigation, the only asserted exemptions that Plaintiff still challenges

are “(1) the names and descriptions of the substances, prices, delivery dates, and expiration dates,

which are withheld under Exemptions 4 and 7(A); (2) internal discussions withheld as

deliberative process under Exemption 5; and (3) alleged ‘techniques’ for obtaining execution

drugs withheld under Exemption 7(E).” Pl’s Reply, ECF No. 41 at 1. Given that Plaintiffs no

longer challenge the Government’s invocation of Exemptions 6, 7(c), 7(f), and attorney-client

and attorney work product privileges under Exemption 5, the court finds the Government’s

motion for summary judgment moot as to those exemptions. See Almaqrami v. Pompeo, 933

F.3d 774, 779 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (“A lawsuit becomes moot—and is therefore no longer a ‘Case’

                                            Page 5 of 14
or ‘Controversy’—'when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally

cognizable interest in the outcome.’”(citation omitted)). Accordingly, the court will analyze only

the remaining disputed exemptions: Exemptions 4, 5, and 7(E).

A.     Adequacy of BOP’s Search

       An “agency must show that it made a good faith effort to conduct a search for the

requested records, using methods which can be reasonably expected to produce the information

requested, which it can do by submitting a reasonably detailed affidavit, setting forth the search

terms and the type of search performed, and averring that all files likely to contain responsive

materials (if such records exist) were searched.” Shapiro v. United States Dep’t of Just., 40 F.4th

609, 612–13 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Shapiro v. Dep’t of Just., 143 S. Ct. 526 (2022)

(cleaned up). “Agency affidavits are accorded a presumption of good faith, which cannot be

rebutted by ‘purely speculative claims about the existence and discoverability of other

documents.’” SafeCard Servs., Inc., 926 F.2d at 1200 (citation omitted).

       BuzzFeed argues that BOP’s search for responsive documents was inadequate because

“the selection of keywords does not include the names of any other drugs considered by BOP or

purchased for lethal injection,” and therefore “the Court should order [the Government] to

conduct a supplemental search using additional drug names as keywords.” Pl’s Combined Mot.

and Opp’n., ECF No. 36-1 at 2–3.

       BuzzFeed does not suggest what these additional keywords should be, however, nor does

it cite any evidence that BOP considered the use of any “additional drugs” as part of its lethal

injection protocol. Moreover, BuzzFeed does not argue that BOP’s search efforts were made in

bad faith or that Christenson’s declaration is not reasonably detailed.

                                           Page 6 of 14
       Consequently, BuzzFeed’s argument that BOP’s search was inadequate is “purely

speculative.” SafeCard Servs. Inc., 926 F.2d 1197 at 1200. The court will not order a

supplemental search and will deny BuzzFeed’s motion regarding the adequacy of BOP’s search.

B.     Exemption 7(E) — Law Enforcement Techniques and Procedures

       Agency “records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes” are protected

from disclosure to the extent that release “would disclose techniques and procedures for law

enforcement investigations or prosecutions . . . if such disclosure could reasonably be expected

to risk circumvention of the law.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(E). “Satisfying the exemption is a

‘relatively low bar’ in this Circuit,” Bigwood v. United States Dep’t of Def., 132 F. Supp. 3d 124,

152 (D.D.C. 2015) (quoting Blackwell v. FBI, 646 F.3d 37, 42 (D.C. Cir. 2011)), but here, the

Government has not met that bar.

       The Government “has applied Exemption 7(E) here to withhold information describing

the guidelines, techniques and procedures used to obtain lethal injection substances in Record

Nos. 1-128, 130-37, 152, and 155-59.8.” ECF No. 35-1 at 30 (citing ECF No. 35-4 ¶ 130).

BuzzFeed argues that the Government has not demonstrated that the withheld records were (i)

“compiled for law enforcement purposes,” ECF No. 36-1 at 3, (ii) their release would disclose

techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, id. at 8, and (iii)

disclosure would “risk circumvention of the law.” Id. at 9.

       In Citizens for Resp. & Ethics in Washington v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., (“CREW I”), plaintiff

sought release of all BOP records pertaining to certain drugs it believed might have been used in

the federal government’s lethal injection protocol, including pentobarbital, from February 14,

2019, through August 8, 2019. 567 F. Supp. 3d 204, 208 (D.D.C. 2021), rev’d on other grounds.

Citizens for Resp. & Ethics in Washington, 58 F.4th 1255. BOP “invoked Exemption 7(E) ‘to

                                           Page 7 of 14
withhold information describing the guidelines, techniques and procedures used to obtain

Pentobarbital.’” Id. at 215. The court held that the records were compiled for law enforcement

purposes because “[t]he effectuation of the death penalty is unquestionably a punishment for

violating the law.” Id. at 215. It also held that although the withheld records were plainly

“techniques and procedures,” BOP had not demonstrated that the techniques and procedures had

anything “to do with ‘law enforcement investigations or prosecutions,’” and therefore the

information was improperly withheld under exemption under 7(E). Id. at 215–17.

       As a threshold matter, this court agrees that BOP’s administration of the death penalty is

a punishment for violating the law. See Mittleman v. Office of Personnel Mgmt., 76 F.3d 1240,

1243 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (“enforcement of the law fairly includes . . . the detection and

punishment of violations of law” (internal quotations and citations omitted)).

       But the Government’s argument, that the meaning of “investigations or prosecutions” in

this Circuit is so capacious as to include the procurement and use of lethal injections, is

unpersuasive. The Government does not claim disclosure would affect an investigation or a

prosecution. At most, it argues that “there is a clear logical nexus between BOP’s efforts to

obtain lethal injection drugs and the implementation of a legitimate, lawfully-imposed capital

sentence.” Defs’ Combined Opp’n and Reply, ECF No. 39 at 15. While that statement is

correct, it reveals nothing about the asserted connection to law enforcement investigations or

prosecutions. As the court explained in CREW I, “[a]n investigation is an inquiry to discern a

truth about the world,” CREW I, 567 F. Supp. 3d at 215, and “the most natural meaning of

prosecution is a kind of court proceeding.” Id. at 216 (citing six dictionaries). Because the

Government has made no new arguments on this issue, here too the court finds “that what [BOP]

                                            Page 8 of 14
does in this context is neither an investigation nor a prosecution,” id. at 216, and the Government

has not demonstrated that Exemption 7(E) covers the withheld documents.

       Consequently, the Government’s motion for summary judgment as to Exemption 7(E)

will be denied, and BuzzFeed’s motion will be granted.

C.     Exemption 4 — Confidential Commercial or Financial Information

       Exemption 4 protects “[t]rade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained

from a person [that is] . . . privileged or confidential.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4). “When an agency

withholds non-trade-secret information under Exemption 4, it must demonstrate that the withheld

information is ‘(1) commercial or financial, (2) obtained from a person, and (3) privileged or

confidential.’” Citizens for Resp. & Ethics in Washington v. United States Dep’t of Just.

(“CREW II”), 58 F.4th 1255, 1262 (D.C. Cir. 2023) (quoting Pub. Citizen Health Rsch. Grp. v.

FDA, 704 F.2d 1280, 1290 (D.C. Cir. 1983)). The term “commercial or financial” “reaches . . .

broadly and applies (among other situations) when the provider of the information has a

commercial interest in the information submitted to the agency.” Baker & Hostetler LLP v. U.S.

Dep’t of Commerce, 473 F.3d 312, 319 (D.C. Cir. 2006). “Commercial or financial” information

is considered “confidential” under Exemption 4 “whenever it is customarily kept private, or at

least closely held, by the person imparting it.” Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media,

139 S. Ct. 2356, 2363 (2019).

       The Government applied Exemption 4 to “all information that could lead to the identity

of individuals and/or companies supplying or potentially supplying lethal injection substances to

the federal government. This information includes names (both personal and company names),

account numbers, phone numbers, addresses, DEA & Tax ID numbers, dates of potential or

actual sales of lethal injection substance(s), and substance descriptions, including

                                           Page 9 of 14
item/stock/UPC numbers, price, quantity, and packaging details, all of which could be used to

identify the suppliers and/or potential suppliers of lethal injection substances.” ECF No. 35-1 at

35–36 (citing ECF No. 35-4 ¶¶ 58-59 & Ex. F). It also applied the exemption to “expiration

dates for substance(s) manufactured and/or held for sale, pricing strategies, unique business

models, and purchasing requirements utilized by the commercial entity supplying the

information.” Id. at 36. The Government contends that courts have “routinely found” this type

of information “to be commercial in nature.” Id. at 36 (citing Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. U.S.

Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 117 F. Supp. 3d 46, 62 (D.D.C. 2015) and Gellman v. Dep’t of

Homeland Sec., No. 16-CV-635 (CRC), 2020 WL 1323896, at *10 (D.D.C. Mar. 20, 2020)).

And it claims that the confidentiality of the information is evidenced by “express assurances” it

provided to “suppliers/potential suppliers” to keep “their identities and contact information”

“confidential” because disclosure “could subject such individuals and/or companies to harm to

their competitive business interests.” Id. at 36–37 (citing Rick Winter Decl. ¶ 21, ECF No. 35-

4).

       Recently, in CREW II—an appeal of the court’s opinion in CREW I—the D.C. Circuit

considered whether BOP could properly assert Exemption 4 to withhold “any information that

could lead to the identity” of lethal injection drug “suppliers or of individuals or companies that

performed related critical services.” 58 F.4th at 1262 (quotation marks and citation omitted).

The Circuit’s inquiry focused on whether contractors’ “names” could be “commercial

information,” and whether “key contract terms”—including drug prices, quantities, expiration

dates, invoices, container units, lot numbers, purchase order/reference numbers, substance

descriptions, drug concentrations, and dates of purchase, service, and/or delivery—could “in fact

                                           Page 10 of 14
reveal the identities of individuals and companies” such that the information could be considered

confidential. Id. at 1262–71.

       The Circuit reversed and remanded, first holding that BOP had failed to provide “detailed

and specific information” showing that the withheld contractor names fell within Exemption 4,

and that on remand, the district court should “require supplemental affidavits to help it determine

whether the contractors’ names demonstrably pertain to the exchange of goods or services or the

making of a profit, such that they may be withheld under Exemption 4.” Id. at 1269. Second,

the Circuit held that the district court must require BOP to “explain how the [key] contract terms

are identifying.” Id. at 1271. “Should the district court conclude that any identifying information

is appropriately withheld under Exemption 4, it should also make an express finding as to

whether portions of the withheld documents are reasonably segregable.” Id.

       Here too the Government’s declarations and briefing lack the requisite specificity to show

whether withheld contractor names “demonstrably pertain to the exchange of goods or services

or the making of a profit,” and whether contract terms are identifying. Id. at 1269–71. The

Government has merely asserted that the withheld information is confidential and that it is

routinely withheld. See ECF No. 35-1 at 36–37. On the basis of the record before it, the court

cannot determine whether Exemption 4 is rightfully applied; accordingly, both parties’ summary

judgment motions as to Exemption 4 will be denied, and the court will order the Government to

supplement the evidentiary record and its briefing on the application of Exemption 4.

D.     Exemption 5 — Deliberative Process Privilege

       FOIA’s Exemption 5 exempts from disclosure only those records that traditionally would

be exempt from production in the civil discovery context. See NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.,

421 U.S. 132, 149 (1975). This includes documents that would be withheld under the

                                          Page 11 of 14
deliberative process privilege. See Dep’t of the Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protective

Ass’n, 532 U.S. 1, 8 (2001).

        To withhold records under Exemption 5, an agency must “identify specific harms to the

relevant protected interests that it can reasonably foresee would actually ensue from disclosure of

the withheld materials.” Jud. Watch, Inc., 2019 WL 4644029, at *5. “The question is not

whether disclosure could chill speech, but rather if it is reasonably foreseeable that it will chill

speech and, if so, what is the link between this harm and the specific information contained in

the material withheld.” Jud. Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Com., 375 F. Supp. 3d 93, 101 (D.D.C.

2019). It is not enough for an agency to speculate that harm could result from disclosure. Id. It

must “connect[] the harms” in a “meaningful way to the information withheld, such as by

providing context or insight into the specific decision-making processes or deliberations at issue,

and how they in particular would be harmed by disclosure.” 2019 WL 4644029, at *5; see also

Jud. Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 487 F. Supp. 3d 38, 47 (D.D.C. 2020), rev’d and

remanded on other grounds by Jud. Watch, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Just., 20 F.4th 49 (D.C.

Cir. 2021) (concluding that DOJ sufficiently connected the disclosure of withheld documents to

foreseeable harm where agency submitted a particularized affidavit linking disclosure to tangible

chilling effect).

        BuzzFeed challenges the Government’s withholding of Records 1, 19, 33, 45, 57, 58,

135, and 137 under Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege, arguing that the Government

has not “shown that this factual information cannot be segregated from any opinions expressed

about that information,” and it has not demonstrated foreseeable harm” from disclosure. ECF

No. 36-1 at 11–13. But “agencies are entitled to a presumption that they complied with the

obligation to disclose reasonably segregable material,” and BuzzFeed has not proffered some

                                            Page 12 of 14
“quantum of evidence” that BOP failed to comply with that obligation. Sussman v. U.S.

Marshals Serv., 494 F. 3d 1106, 1117 (D.C. Cir. 2007)). Consequently, BuzzFeed’s first

argument is unpersuasive, but the court agrees with BuzzFeed that the Government has failed to

demonstrate the requisite foreseeable harm.

       Without reliance on a declaration or affidavit, the Government argues that because

Pentobarbital’s selection in the lethal injection protocol is publicly known and has been used to

carry out five executions, “the public’s interest in the disclosure of BOP’s prior efforts to procure

lethal injection drugs is minimal.” ECF No. 39 at 24. In addition, it argues that the value of

disclosure does not outweigh the foreseeable harm to BOP’s future decision making, given that it

will likely have to identify new suppliers or different drugs in the future. Id.

       To the extent that the Government argues that disclosure would discourage frank

dialogue, it cannot rely on generalized statements. See Ctr. for Investigative Reporting v. U.S.

Customs & Border Prot., 436 F. Supp. 3d 90, 106 (D.D.C. 2019). The Government has failed to

connect any particular document to the stated harm, and it does not “provid[e] context or insight

into the specific decision-making processes or deliberations at issue, and how they in particular

would be harmed by disclosure.” Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, No. 17-cv- 0832,

2019 WL 4644029, at *5 (D.D.C. Sept. 24, 2019).

       Consequently, the court will deny summary judgment for both parties regarding

Exemption 5 and permit the Government to supplement the record regarding foreseeable harm.

                                       IV.      CONCLUSION

       Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary judgment and the Plaintiff’s motion

for summary judgment will both be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. A corresponding

Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.

                                             Page 13 of 14
Date: August 30, 2023

                              Tanya S. Chutkan
                              TANYA S. CHUTKAN
                              United States District Judge

                        Page 14 of 14