MEMORANDUM OPINION
JAMES
E. BOASBERG, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff
Niskanen Center, Inc. is seeking information about the
National Coal Council, a chartered federal advisory committee
that provides advice and recommendations to the Department of
Energy. NCC was established in 1984 by the Secretary of
Energy to “give coal . . . the same voice” in
government that petroleum had long had. See ECF No.
18 (Pl. MSJ & Opp.), Exh. A (Website) at 1. NCC has an
incorporated counterpart - NCC, Inc. - in which the Center is
also interested. Plaintiff thus submitted a Freedom of
Information Act request to DOE for thirteen categories of
information regarding NCC and NCC, Inc. DOE has turned over
two sets of responsive documents, but Plaintiff remains
dissatisfied with the adequacy of the search and the extent
of the withholdings. Suit having been filed, each party now
moves for summary judgment. The Court will grant in part and
deny in part both Motions.
I.
Background
By
letter dated March 10, 2017, Plaintiff explained that it is
“engaged in a study of the long-term effectiveness of
certain federal advisory committees” and requested from
DOE thirteen categories of information regarding NCC and NCC,
Inc., dating from 1986. See Pl. MSJ & Opp., Exh.
O (Plaintiff's Request); ECF No. 16 (Def. MSJ), Exh. B
(Email Amending Request). The Center sought such documents as
membership lists, reports and studies, newsletters and
announcements, agendas and transcripts, financial statements,
tax filings, as well as information about NCC subgroups, NCC,
Inc.'s incorporation and 501(c)(6) status, NCC Inc.'s
finances and expenditures, and the relationship between NCC
and NCC, Inc. See Pl. Request at 1-2. DOE responded
on April 7, 2017, that it had “assigned” the
request to DOE's Office of Fossil Energy (OFE) to conduct
a search of its files for responsive documents. See
Def. MSJ, Exh. C (DOE Response) at 2.
Ten
days later, when DOE failed to respond further by FOIA's
statutory deadline, the Center filed this lawsuit.
See ECF No. 1 (Complaint). By letter dated July 7,
2017, DOE finally responded to Plaintiff, identifying eleven
documents and one Windows Media Player file responsive to the
request and indicating that partially withheld documents were
redacted pursuant to FOIA Exemption 6. See ECF No.
16-1 (Declaration of Alexander C. Morris), ¶ 21; Def.
MSJ, Exh. D (DOE First Response Letter) at 1-2. After
reviewing the production, the Center advised DOE that it
believed the search deficient, “including because DOE
had failed to provide any documents falling within the
categories of Plaintiff's request specifically pertaining
to NCC, Inc. and its relationship to [NCC].” Pl. MSJ
& Opp., Exh. P (Declaration of David Bookbinder), ¶
2; see also Morris Decl., ¶¶ 22-23. DOE
then conducted a further search, identifying in a September
13, 2017, letter 21 additional documents and one additional
VOB (Video Object) file. See Morris Decl., ¶
31; Def. MSJ, Exh. E (DOE Second Response Letter) at 2. It
withheld in full or in part certain of those documents based
on Exemptions 4 and 6. Id.
Both
the Center and DOE have now moved for summary judgment, and
DOE has provided copies of the withholdings for the
Court's in camera review. See ECF No.
23.
II.
Legal Standard
Summary
judgment may be granted if “the movant shows that there
is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986); Holcomb v.
Powell, 433 F.3d 889, 895 (D.C. Cir. 2006). A fact is
“material” if it is capable of affecting the
substantive outcome of the litigation. See Liberty
Lobby, 477 U.S. at 248; Holcomb, 433 F.3d at
895. A dispute is “genuine” if the evidence is
such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the
nonmoving party. See Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372,
380 (2007); Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 248;
Holcomb, 433 F.3d at 895. “A party asserting
that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support
the assertion” by “citing to particular parts of
materials in the record” or “showing that the
materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a
genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce
admissible evidence to support the fact.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
56(c)(1). The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating
the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. See
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).
FOIA
cases typically and appropriately are decided on motions for
summary judgment. See Brayton v. Office of the U.S. Trade
Representative, 641 F.3d 521, 527 (D.C. Cir. 2011). In a
FOIA case, a court may grant summary judgment based solely on
information provided in an agency's affidavits or
declarations when they “describe the justifications for
nondisclosure with reasonably specific detail, demonstrate
that the information withheld logically falls within the
claimed exemption, and are not controverted by either
contrary evidence in the record nor by evidence of agency bad
faith.” Larson v. Dep't of State, 565 F.3d
857, 862 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). Such affidavits
or declarations “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. v. SEC,
926 F.2d 1197, 1200 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (quoting Ground
Saucer Watch, Inc. v. CIA, 692 F.2d 770, 771 (D.C. Cir.
1981)). “Unlike the review of other agency action that
must be upheld if supported by substantial evidence and not
arbitrary or capricious, the FOIA expressly places the burden
‘on the agency to sustain its action' and directs
the district courts to ‘determine the matter de
novo.'” Dep't of Justice v. Reporters Comm.
for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749, 755 (1989)
(quoting 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B)).
III.
Analysis
Congress
enacted FOIA “to pierce the veil of administrative
secrecy and to open agency action to the light of public
scrutiny.” Dep't of the Air Force v. Rose,
425 U.S. 352, 361 (1976) (quotation marks and citation
omitted). “The basic purpose of FOIA is to ensure an
informed citizenry, vital to the functioning of a democratic
society, needed to check against corruption and to hold the
governors accountable to the governed.” John Doe
Agency v. John Doe Corp., 493 U.S. 146, 152 (1989)
(citation omitted). The statute provides that “each
agency, upon any request for records which (i) reasonably
describes such records and (ii) is made in accordance with
published rules . . . shall make the records promptly
available to any person.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A).
Consistent with this statutory mandate, federal courts have
jurisdiction to order the production of records that an
agency improperly withholds. See id. §
552(a)(4)(B); Reporters Comm., 489 U.S. at 754-55.
“At all times courts must bear in mind that FOIA
mandates a ‘strong presumption in favor of
disclosure.'” Nat'l Ass'n of Home
Builders v. Norton, 309 F.3d 26, 32 (D.C. Cir. 2002)
(quoting Dep't of State v. Ray, 502 U.S. 164,
173 (1991)).
Plaintiff
contends that DOE erred in two essential respects. First, the
Center argues that the Agency has failed to demonstrate that
it conducted an adequate search. See Pl. MSJ &
Opp. at 39. Second, it disputes the applicability of
withholdings pursuant to Exemption 4. Id. at 15. The
Center does not, conversely, challenge the applicability of
Exemption 6 to any of the records at issue. Compare
Def. MSJ at 11-12 & Exh. F (Vaughn Index),
with Pl. MSJ & Opp. at i-ii. The Court thus
addresses arguments as to the search and then the
withholdings in turn.
A.
Adequacy of Search
“An
agency fulfills its obligations under FOIA if it can
demonstrate beyond material doubt that its search was
‘reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant
documents.'” Valencia-Lucena v. Coast
Guard, 180 F.3d 321, 325 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (quoting
Truitt v. Dep't of State, 897 F.2d 540, 542
(D.C. Cir. 1990)); see also Steinberg v. Dep't of
Justice, 23 F.3d 548, 551 (D.C. Cir. 1994). “[T]he
issue to be resolved is not whether there might exist any
other documents possibly responsive to the request, but
rather whether the search for those documents was
adequate.” Weisberg v. Dep't of
Justice, 745 F.2d 1476, 1485 (D.C. Cir. 1984). The
adequacy of an agency's search for documents requested
under FOIA “is judged by a standard of reasonableness
and depends, not surprisingly, upon the facts of each
case.” Id. To meet its burden, the agency may
submit affidavits or declarations that explain the scope and
method of its search “in reasonable detail.”
Perry v. Block, 684 F.2d 121, 127 (D.C. Cir. 1982).
Absent contrary evidence, such affidavits or declarations are
sufficient to show that an agency complied with FOIA.
Id. “If, however, the record leaves
substantial doubt as to the sufficiency of the search,
summary judgment for the agency is not proper.”
Truitt, 897 F.2d at 542.
To
demonstrate the adequacy of its search here, Defendant offers
two declarations by Alexander Morris, the FOIA Officer in
DOE's Office of Public Information (OPI). See
Morris Decl.; ECF No. 20-2 (Supplemental Declaration of
Alexander C. Morris). He explains that DOE conducted its
search in two steps. First, the Agency assigned the
Center's request to OFE, “the program office within
the [DOE] that is designated by the [NCC] charter to provide
primary support to its organization.” Morris Decl.,
¶¶ 9, 13. OFE searched “staff records . . .
and physical files . . . for any records containing
‘National Coal Council' and the names of working
groups and subgroups, announcements, press releases,
membership lists, charters, studies, agendas, newsletters,
meeting minutes, and audio and written transcripts for all
years since 1986.” Id., ΒΆ 16. Second, OFE
conducted a search of physical files - for the term
...