United States District Court, D. Columbia.
SEAN D. REYES, Attorney General, State of Utah,  Plaintiff,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Defendant
For Mark L. Shurtleff, Attorney General of the State of Utah, Plaintiff: Prashant Kumar Khetan, LEAD ATTORNEY, TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP, Washington, DC.
For United States Environmental Protection Agency, Defendant: Claire M. Whitaker, LEAD ATTORNEY, U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Washington, DC.
Emmet G. Sullivan, United States District Judge.
Pending before the Court is  the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's
(" EPA" ) Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment. Upon consideration of the motion, response, reply, the relevant caselaw and the record as a whole, and for the reasons that follow, the Renewed Motion is GRANTED.
This matter arises from Plaintiff's Freedom of Information Act (" FOIA" ) request to EPA seeking information on the EPA's Endangerment Finding, which found that certain greenhouse gases taken in combination endanger the public health and welfare. The request was lengthy, consisting of fourteen pages and thirty-seven subparts, and broad, seeking a tremendous amount of information about the finding. See Compl., Ex. A. The EPA ultimately located about 13,000 responsive records, of which approximately 8,200 were released in part, 4,445 were released in full, and 342 were withheld in full. See Decl. of Elizabeth Craig (" Craig Decl." ) ¶ 61.
In September 2013, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion granting in part and denying in part the EPA's Motion for Summary Judgment. Shurtleff v. EPA, No. 10-2030, 991 F.Supp.2d 1, (D.D.C. Sept. 30, 2013) (" 2013 Opinion" ). Familiarity with the 2013 Opinion is assumed. With regard to the partial denial of the motion, the Court directed EPA (1) either to disclose documents withheld under the attorney-client privilege or file supplemental submissions indicating in sufficient detail why withholding is proper; and (2) either to conduct another search for documents responsive to subparts A(4)(b),(c), A(5)(a),(b),(c),(d),(e), B(1)(a), D(1)(a),(b), E(2)(a),(b), and F(1)(a) of Plaintiff's FOIA request, or, in the alternative, prove that its prior searches meet the adequacy standard. Id. at *45.
Subsequently, EPA filed the instant Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment. In support of its Renewed Motion, the EPA relies upon the Second Supplemental Declaration of Elizabeth Craig (" Second Supp. Craig Decl." ). Craig is the Director of the Climate Protection Partnership Division of the Office of Atmospheric Programs in the EPA's Office of Air and Radiation, and former Acting Director of the Office of Atmospheric Programs. Second Supp. Craig Decl. ¶ 1. The EPA's Renewed Motion is ripe for review.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
The court may grant a motion for summary judgment if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits or declarations, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). In a FOIA case, the burden of proof is on the agency to demonstrate that it has fully discharged its obligations under the FOIA. See U.S. ...