COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE v. OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY, No. 1:2014cv00765 - Document 12 (D.D.C. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION to the Order granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 3/3/15. (CL, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE v. OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY Doc. 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Competitive Enterprise Institute, Plaintiff, v. Office of Science and Technology Policy Civil Action No. 14-765 (GK) Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Competitive Enterprise "CEI") brings this Technology Policy action against Institute the ("Plaintiff" Office of Science or and ("Defendant," "OSTP," or "the Government"), a component of the Executive Office of the President of the United States. Plaintiff Information Act Administrative (Count III), alleges ("FOIA"), violations 5 U.S.C. Procedure Act ("APA"), 552, matter is presently Governmen.t' s Motion to Dismiss, of the Motion, Opposition, and the entire record herein, (Counts I of II), the & 704, § ("FRA"), et seq., 44 U.S.C. §§ (Counts IV-VII). before [Dkt. No. [Dkt. Freedom the 5 U.S.C. and the Federal Records Act 2101-18, 2901-09, 3101-07, 3301-14, This § of No. 8], the 7]. Court on the Upon consideration Reply, [Dkt. No. 10], and for the reasons stated below, Dockets.Justia.com Defendant's Motion granted, is and Plaintiff's Complaint shall be dismissed. I. BACKGROUND A. Statutory Framework 1. Freedom of Information Act FOIA, 5 U.S. C. § 552, allows individuals disclosure of records from government agencies. When the an agency records receives sought, a request § 552 (a) ( 3) (A) , id. that to request the Id. § 552 (a) ( 3) . "reasonably describes" ·it must "conduct [] a search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents." Morely v. CIA, quotation marks 508 F.3d 1108, omitted). 1114 The (D.C. agency responsive agency records it locates, Cir. must 2007) then (internal disclose any except to the extent that any such records are protected from disclosure by one of FOIA's nine statutory exemptions. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). If one an of remedies, challenge § agency withholds FOIA' s responsive after exemptions, records not exhausting covered by administrative the requester may file a lawsuit in district court to the agency's decision to withhold. 552(a) (4) (B). As the Supreme Court has held, See id. in order to state a claim under FOIA, a requester must allege that the agency has (1) (2) withheld; for Freedom improperly; Reporters Comm. (3) of -2- agency records. the Press, 445 Kissinger v. U.S. 136, 150 (1980). "Judicial authority to devise agencies can only be invoked . remedies and enjoin if the agency has contravened all three components of this obligation." Id. 2. FRA The creation, Federal Records Act is accord 44 U.S.C. of disposal Carlin, §§ governing statutes of records 184 F.3d 900, 2101-18, 2901-09, 902 adequate functions, documents under the federal (D.C. 3101-07, and proper Cir. 3301-14. policies, documentation the procedures, decisions, of and essential transactions of the agency [.]" 44 U.S. C. all by the agency heads are required to "make and preserve containing organization, and Citizen v. Under the FRA, records collection management, agencies." Pub. 1999); "a in FRA. an agency's Instead, possession "records" qualify includes § as any 3101. Not "records" "recorded information" "made or received by a Federal agency under Federal law or in connection with the transaction of public business and preserved or appropriate for preservation by that agency as evidence of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities of the Government or because § of the informational value in them." Id. 330l(a)(l)(A). Agencies may only dispose of records on terms approved by the Archivist of the United States, who is head of the National -3- Archives and Records Administration 36 C.F.R. 1225.10. § disposition process, In order agencies ("NARA"). to may 44 U.S.C. efficiently create records 3303; § manage the schedules, which must be approved by the NARA, to govern recurring types of records. 44 U.S.C. Records may be 3303(3); § deemed 36 C.F.R. temporary or §§ 1225.10-1225.26. permanent, designation leading to destruction after a the former set period and the latter, to preservation and eventually, transfer to the NARA. 36 C.F.R. §§ If 1225.14, 1225.16. an threatened deletion, agency head unlawful erasure, learns removal, or of "any defacing, other actual, impending, alteration, destruction of or corruption, records in the custody of the agency," he or she must notify the Archivist. 44 U.S.C. to § 3106. If the agency head "knows or has reason believe [that records] have been unlawfully removed from [his or her] agency," then the agency head "with the assistance of the Archivist shall initiate action through the Attorney General for the recovery of records [.]" Id. If the agency head "does not initiate an action for such recovery or other redress within a reasonable period of time," the Attorney Generai to then the Archivist initiate such an "shall action, request and notify the Congress when such a request has been made." Id. -4- shall Factual Background1 B. On October 15, seeking "copies of from 2013, all jholdren@whrc.org Request at 2. [Dkt. Plaintiff his ("Dr. former (including 7-1]; see employer, a Compl. also cc: ']['][ he used this request sent or· bee:)." compl. entity 23. account FOIA to or FOIA 26-28. 2-3, CEI The provided to OSTP Director John private '][ 2, Holdren maintained this that as a emails Holdren" or "Director Holdren") Research Center. and OSTP policy /OSTP-related jholdren@whrc.org email account, Holdren sent is maintained by called the Woods Hole The request alleged that "John after joining the White House, address/account OSTP-related for correspondence." CEI FOIA Request at 2. CEI searching while clearly responsive that jholdren@whrc.org." "[i]t Holdren's stated [would] OSTP make [] its Id. According sense on the for cited would to OSTP this account(s) [,] records request "entail[] CEI's to request account[,]" request, search Mr. [was] for id.' i.e., jholdren@whrc.org, not his OSTP account(s). 1 For purposes of ruling on a motion to dismiss, the factual allegations of the complaint must be presumed to be true and liberally construed in favor of the plaintiff. Aktieselskabet AF 21. November 2001 v. Fame Jeans Inc., 525 F.3d 8, 15 (D.C. Cir. 2008); Shear v. Nat'l Rifle Ass'n of Am., 606 F.2d 1251, 1253 (D.C. Cir. 197 9) Therefore, unless otherwise noted, the facts set forth herein are taken from Plaintiff's Complaint. -5- On February 4, stating that 2014, "OSTP 'jholdren@whrc.org' Defendant [would responded to CEI' s be] account unable because search to that 11 Request [Dkt. records [CEI] Compl. 7-2]). 29 OSTP requested to therefore, "consider [ed] On February Plaintiff agency's 18, requested initial (quoting stated March 2014, Compl. serve as appeal; was] an CEI replied administrative 2014, 2 February 18. it 32. OSTP FOIA "underst[ood] reach of 11 FOIA, 11 the and Id. OSTP's letter. appellate review of the records sought the were 30. responded In OSTP's view, instead, to to that [was] a private Response [the] request unperfected. determination 7, that be beyond the outside of FOIA's ambit. Compl. On OSTP' s the account under the control of the Woods Hole Research Center, organization. request to CEI's letter of CEI's letter did not it merely "clarif [ied] that [CEI requesting a search of Dr. Holdren's OSTP email account for records to and from jholdren@whrc.org. On April 18, 2014, 11 CEI responded, Id. calling OSTP's reading a mischaracterization and reiterating its desire for the agency to Plaintiff's 32 states that OSTP did not respond to CEI's February letter until March 31, 2014, but that appears to be a mistake. A copy of the letter with the text quoted in the Complaint bears the date March 7, 2014. [Dkt. No. 7-4]. CEI attached to its Opposition another letter from OSTP dated March 31, 2014, [Dkt. No. 8-1], but the March 31 letter also references the March 7 letter. -62 search for all OSTP-related j holdren@whrc. org. 7-5]. CEI respond review noted to Compl. that, CEI's unless in appeal OSTP ':II 33; its sent that a the CEI [ Dkt. agency had would substantive from or to CEI' s April Response view, and provided emails No. failed pursue response to judicial by May 1, 2014. Compl. ':II 33. On May 5, 2014, CEI filed its Complaint; on July 11, 2014, OSTP filed its Motion to Dismiss; on July 28, 2014, CEI filed its Opposition; and on August 21, 2014 OSTP filed its Reply. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW In order 12 (b) (6), to survive a motion to dismiss under Rule a plaintiff need only plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face" and to "nudge[ [his or her] claims across the plausible." Bell Atlantic Corp. (2007). "[O]nce a supported by v. line from Twombly, 550 conceivable U.S. claim has been stated adequately, showing any set of facts consistent 544, to 570 it may be with the allegations in the complaint." Id. at 563. Under the Twombly standard, a "court deciding a motion to dismiss must not make any judgment about the probability of the plaintiffs' success . the complaint are true [,] must assume all the allegations in (even if doubtful in fact) [, and] must give the plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences -7- derived from the facts alleged." Aktieselskabet AF 21. 2001 v. Fame (internal Jeans Inc., quotation marks will not suffice, 525 F.3d and however, 8, 17 citations (D.C. Cir. omitted). if it "tenders 662, 678 (2009) (quoting 2008) A complaint 'naked assertion [ s] ' devoid of 'further factual enhancement.'" Ashcroft v. u.s. November Twombly, 550 Iqbal, 556 u.s. at 557) (alteration in Iqbal) . III. ANALYSIS Counts I & II: FOIA Claims Seeking an Injunction and a Declaratory Judgment A. Counts I and II of CEI's Complaint arise under FOIA, allows (2) private withholding persons of (3) to contest agency an records. agency's which (1) improper Kissinger, U.S. 445 at 150. Plaintiff has been exceedingly clear about what it wanted from OSTP: work-related emails unofficial email account, by a FOIA private entity, Request at jholdren@whrc.org. Holdren's responsive OSTP ("This makes Hole FOIA on sense for but the request Research [request] account(s) records ("Plaintiff's It on Holdren's Dr. jholdren@whrc.org, which is maintained the Woods 2 residing cited to OSTP -8- Center. this to search request account."); sought CEI searching entails OSTP See Compl. Mr. is for <J[ 26 specifically described records sent to, from or copied to a specific non- official email address[.]") . 3 Relying contends on that Kissinger, it is not 445 U.S. at "withholding" 139, the the requested because it neither possesses nor controls them. 4 the Supreme Court demonstrates that prerequisite to FOIA did not held an that FOIA's agency's FOIA disclosure reach duties [.]" transcriptions of or requirement control is at 152. Thus, Kissinger's phone Id. Henry emails In Kissinger, "withholding" "possession Government a calls once the transcriptions had been removed from the State Department's possession and placed under the control of Mr. 3 In its brief, CEI maintains that it also wants copies of emails sent to or from jholdren@whrc. org that reside on Dr. Holdren's official OSTP email account. Pl.'s Opp' n at 18-22. CEI acknowledges, ·however, that before litigation commenced, OSTP had already begun rolling productions of responsive emails on Dr. Holdren's OSTP account. Id. at 25. CEI claims that there is something " [ s] uspicious []" about the Government's cessation of these rolling productions, id., but the Government only stopped production after CEI filed suit, alleging that OSTP had "mischaracterized[,]" "distort[ed,] and effectively rewr[itten]" CEI' s FOIA request. Compl. CJICJI 32, 3 7. In the face of these allegations and CEI's statement that its "request [was] for responsive records on [jholdren@whrc.org,]" CEI FOIA Request at 2, the Government's decision to stop production was neither suspicious nor surprising. CEI's insinuations lack any merit. 4 The Government also contends that the emails are not "agency records" because OSTP did not create or obtain them. Because CEI's FOIA claims fail on the "withholding" prong of the Kissinger analysis, the Court need not cr:-each the question of whether the emails sought are agency records. -9- •· Kissinger and the Library of Congress. Kissinger, 445 U.S. at 154-55. Plaintiff's own allegations, which the Court must accept as true at this stage, belie any over emails located on the itself admits are outside OSTP' s that OSTP has jholdren@whrc.org account. repeatedly that of argument emails control. control Plaintiff on the unofficial account Compl. ']['][ 23, 27, 30, 4 6. The Complaint specifically alleges that when an agency employee uses an email account "under the control of, this case, "solely the under Woods the Hole control Research of a third party . Center," private the parties in emails and are generally unknown to and inaccessible by the federal government[.]" Compl. '][ 23. Plaintiff cannot now disregard its own allegations. CEI that attempts because to ( 1) j holdren@whrc. org and controls resuscitate Dr. ( 2) the unofficial argument's fundamental its Holdren Dr. email claim with maintains Holdren is OSTP' s account. the argument control over Director, OSTP Even putting aside this conflict with CEI' s allegations, it has no legal basis. The law is clear, by way of the however, that agencies do not -- merely employer/employee relationship -- -10- gain "control" over their Enterprise 989 F. employees' Institute v. Supp. 2d employee's emails the agency's Office, are systems private email Hotmail, Mac, 86 (D.D.C. see also FEDERAL Need also that accounts. 2013) 5 Competitive and Space Admin. , (holding that NASA located on university account were not under GA0-08-742, ("Agencies email National Aeronautics control); Selected Agencies email 74, personal to RECORDS: Strengthen required are accounts not on to Gov't U.S. National E-Mail address controlled by commercial Accountability Archives Management and (2008) 6 the use of external the agency (such· as systems such as Gmail, etc.)"). 7 That is precisely why agencies admonish 5 Quoting out of context, CEI argues that "employees are not distinct from their agencies." Pl.'s Opp'n at 4 (quoting Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Dep't of Energy, 310 F. Supp. 2d 271, 300 (D. D.C. 2004)). The cited language, however, had nothing to do with agency control of employees' personal accounts, and instead, dealt only with whether Department of Energy employees detailed to the Office of the Vice President created FOIAaccessible records during the detail. Judicial Watch, Inc., 310 F. Supp. 2d at 300. More importantly, the district court was reversed on this point. See Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Dep' t of Energy, 412 F.3d 125, 132 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (holding that "the detailees were as a practical matter employees" of the Office of the Vice President and that therefore their records were not "agency records".within the of FOIA). 6 7 Available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/280/276561.pdf. CEI relies on Landmark Legal Foundation v. EPA, 959 F. Supp. 2d 175, 182 (D.D.C. 2013) for the proposition that, if so directed by a FOIA request, agencies must search employees' personal email accounts. The ·factual· context of that case was quite different. Because of "EPA's silence" about to whether "personal -11- their employees business so). (and See to use their discipline id.; official employees Armstrong v. accounts who Bush, for repeatedly 924 F.2d government fail 282, to 296 do n.12 (describing options available to agency officials to prevent and remedy the unlawful removal of agency records by employees); see also Compl. Under personal lead. 42. FOIA, even interests See e.g., high distinct Kissinger, ranking from agency those 445 U.S. of officials the agencies have they at 157. (rejecting argument that would render "Kissinger's personal books, speeches, and all other memorabilia stored in subject to disclosure under [] Inc. v. Dep't of Justice, (holding that his agency office records FOIA."); Bureau of Nat'l Affairs, 742 F.2d 1484, appointment calendars for 1496 (D.C. Cir. 1984) DOJ Assistant Attorney General were not subject to FOIA because they "were created for the personal convenience of individual officials so that they could organize both their personal and business appointments."). CEI fails to cite any authority supporting the proposition that simply because Dr. Holdren heads the OSTP, his unofficial email account falls under the agency's control. accounts were being used to conduct official business [,]" the Court did not have the opportunity to address whether EPA actually had the requisite control of its employees' accounts. Id. -12- Finally, CEI worries that if government employees' personal email accounts escape FOIA are not subject coverage to FOIA, altogether agency officials will government conducting by business with their personal accounts. CEI's reliance on FOIA to solve this intended scheme anticipated when it embodied Records enacted in Disposal problem the Act [] is misplaced: FOIA, Federal providing to displace Records for "Congress Act the and statutory the administrative never Federal remedies to safeguard against wrongful removal of agency records as well as to retrieve wrongfully removed records." Kissinger, 154; accord amendments Armstrong, to the 924 FRA "Congress administrative enforcement, behest of private F.2d at again rather than litigants to 294 (In 445 U.S. post-Kissinger decided judicial prevent the at to rely review at on the destruction or removal of records."). Accordingly, Counts I & II of Plaintiff's Complaint shall be dismissed. B. Count III: APA Claim Seeking Review Failure to Take Action on FOIA Request of Agency's Count III of the Complaint seeks relief under the APA for OSTP's request. review failure to take action with respect to CEI's The Government contends that the APA permits only when "there court[.]" Gov't's Mot. is at 24 no other adequate (quoting 5 U.S.C. -13- § judicial remedy 704). FOIA in a Because FOIA provides its own remedial scheme, "[t]his Court and others have uniformly declined jurisdiction over APA claims that sought remedies made Supp. 2d 70, failed available 76 to by FOIA." (D.D.C. 2010). respond to the Feinman v. F.B.I., For this reason, Government's 713 F. and because CEI arguments in its Opposition, Count III shall be dismissed. C. Counts IV and V: FRA Claims Seeking a Declaratory Judgment and an Injunction Ordering OSTP to Preserve and Prevent the Destruction of Documents Count IV seeks a declaratory judgment that, OSTP has a destruction duty of to acquire, work-related official accounts, preserve, email sent and Count V seeks or under the RFA, and the prevent received on non- an injunction to enforce this duty. Under the FRA, however, private parties may challenge only (1) the adequacy of an agency's record-keeping guidelines; or (2) the agency head or Archivist's failure to seek initiation of an enfor?ement .action by the Attorney General. Armstrong, F.2d at 291-93, 295. Private plaintiffs may not 924 challenge an agency's compliance with its guidelines. Id. at 294. As policies also CEI' s are clear employee on was Complaint facially this using acknowledges, adequate. issue. Compl. After non-official Director Holdren affirmed the OSTP' s being email <JI 54 records ( "OSTP policy informed for retention that official an is OSTP business, law and policy in equally clear -14- terms, reminding related email OSTP must staff be copied ("[T]he Federal Records Act, all mak [e] law by in the to Holdren the memo that agency[.]"); OSTP policy and the id. work 30 'Holdren memo' plain that employees cannot exempt records from the keeping them from the control of others in their agency."). Attempting claims, CEI to evade argues that the its FRA's preclusion Complaint of "describes compliance the Holdren memo to illustrate what OSTP once admitted its policy should be, not as evidence of what its policy Pl.'s Opp' n at 2 6-27 (and practice) in fact is." (emphasis in original) . The allegations in CEI's Complaint, however, fail to show that OSTP has "repudiated the Holdren Memo" as CEI now argues. Id. at 27. Instead the Complaint provides an example of Director Holdren following what CEI believes to be an acceptable records retention policy, Compl. any On the basis of vague allegations, 54. specifics, practiced) practice, namely issuance of his memo to all employees. CEI its argument that OSTP' s policy (as is inadequate and that it has engaged in a "pattern, and preserving, ongoing than policy work-related email accounts [.] " more bases without citing a Compl. "legal of email 92. failing sent to However, conclusion -15- to or acquire, from and not non-official this allegation is no couched as a factual allegation[,]" and is accordingly, assumption of truth." Ashcroft, entitled "not 556 U.S. at 678-79. to the For these reasons Counts IV and V shall be dismissed. Count VI: Writ of Mandamus D. Count VI of the Compliant seeks a writ of mandamus ordering the Director of OSTP to "prohibit the practice of using non- official email accounts for work-related correspondence" and "to preserve ! and provide" the documents Plaintiff seeks. 110. The "remedy of mandamus is a drastic one, Compl. to be invoked only in extraordinary circumstances. Mandamus is available only if: right (1) the plaintiff defendant has a has a clear clear duty to act; and to ( 3) relief; (D.C. Cir. 2002) the there is no other adequate remedy available to plaintiff." Power v. F.3d 781, 784 ( 2) Barnhart, 292 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted) . The Government argues that CEI's request for a writ of mandamus is duplicative of Plaintiff's FRA claims and that the request is faulty because: of agency compliance ( 1) the FRA precludes judicial review with record-retention guidelines, therefore Plaintiff has no clear right to relief; ( 2) and OSTP has no clear duty to act because agencies have discretion under the FRA; and ( 3) to the extent that Plaintiff has any right to relief, the availability of APA review of an agency's failure to -16- notify the enough to National Archivist preclude mandamus. of CEI unlawful failed record to removals respond to is any of these arguments in its Opposition, and therefore, Count VI shall be dismissed. E. Count VII: FRA Claim Seeking an Injunction Requiring OSTP's Director to Notify National Archivist of Removal of Federal Records Count VII seeks an order directing the head of the OSTP to "notify the Archivist of the United States, and initiate actions through the Attorney General regarding records permitted by the Administrator the removal [sic] of federal and to assist the Attorney General in initiating an enforcement action to recover those records." Count VI I at 296 Compl. <JI 122. Unlike CEI' s is not barred by the Act itself. other FRA Armstrong, claims, 92 4 F. 2d ("[I]f the agency head or Archivist does nothing while an agency official destroys or removes records in contravention of agency guidelines and directives, private litigants may bring suit to require the agency head and Archivist to fulfill their statutory duty to notify Congress and ask the Attorney General to initiate legal action."). In order to state a records have been claim, unlawfully CEI must plausibly allege that "removed" from OSTP. Id. The parties do not dispute that although a record may reside on an unofficial email account, it has not been "removed" for purposes -17- of the FRA as long as a copy als"o exists on an official account. 8 Thus, in order to state a claim, CEI must plausibly allege that Dr. Holdren failed to copy his official account with any agency records residing on his unofficial account. The failed to account. that Complaint place never copies directly of alleges agency records Instead -- quite tellingly -- OSTP's response j holdren@whrc. org contains In Plaintiff's view, the to records that his Holdren official Plaintiff merely states FOIA not on Dr. request shows copied to OSTP' s that files. "OSTP asserted that plaintiff's request was not in fact a FOIA request because it sought emails Holdren had placed under his sole control, Records Act [.] '" Compl. <JI <J[ 55 in contravention of the Federal (emphasis added) ) ; see also Compl. 113. Rather than state a factual basis for its allegation that Dr. Holdren unlawfully removed agency records, point's to OSTP's response to CEI's FOIA request. CEI simply 9 8 Though not relevant here, the Government adds that an email is unlawfully "removed" (even when the agency has a copy) if there is some independent reason why the document should not appear on an unofficial account, such as the presence of classified information. Gov't's Reply at 19. 9 CEI attempts to shift the burden of proof to OSTP, arguing that "OSTP has not even alleged that most [records sent to or from unofficial email accounts] were captured on agency systems[.]" Pl.'s Opp' n at 24. CEI contends that "it is simply implausible to suggest that each and every one of the many emails in Holdren's 'personal' email account did not qualify as a federal -18- However, OSTP's response, which is quoted in the Complaint, does not assert that "Holdren had plgced his sole control [.]" responded, "OSTP Compl. unable is err 55. to [agency records] To the search the contrary, the under agency 'jholdren@whrc.org' account for the records you have requested because that account is under the control private organization. of the Compl. II err Woods 55 Hole Research Center, (quoting Denial Letter, a OSTP FOIA No. 14-02, February 4, 2014). CEI would have the Court interpret OSTP's refusal to search Dr. Holdren's unofficial uncopied agency records state a claim. CEI the claim plausible OSTP. account to reside there. must that be It has failed to do so, 10 admission That does not affirmatively documents an allege have been facts that suffice to that make "removed" from and therefore Count VII shall be dismissed. record[.]" Pl.'s Opp'n at 26. However, it is CEI, the Plaintiff in this matter, that bears the burden of alleging sufficient facts to support its claim. 10 Plaintiff's Opposition states that CEI discovered that "many examples of work-related correspondence between Holdren (using his personal email account) and then-EPA administrator Lisa Jackson turned up in a sample Vaughn index as withheld agency records, in CEI v. EPA, D.D.C. No. 12-1617 (JEB) ." Pl.'s Opp'n at 25. Even though the Complaint refers to the cited Vaughn index, it fails to make this particular allegation. See Compl. errerr 2, 20, 80. Plaintiff now asks the Court to take judicial notice of the Vaughn index and of the truth of CEI' s newfound allegation. The Court cannot take judicial notice of the facts -19- IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, granted, Motion to Dismiss is and Plaintiff's Complaint shall be dismissed. An Order shall accompany this Memorandum Opinion. March 3, 2015 Gladys Kess r United States District Judge Copies to: attorneys on record via ECF CEI attempts to establish because they (1) were not alleged in CEI's Complaint and (2) appear to be without basis in the document cited. The Vaughn index contains numerous redactions of an email address belonging to Dr. Holdren, but contrary to CEI's assertion, the redacted address is apparently the OSTP Director's official White House account. Decl. of Eric Wachter [Dkt. No. 10-1] SI 7 ("EPA withheld the official White House email address of Dr. Holdren[.] No other email address was withheld by EPA in these documents."). -20-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
