On June 1, 2018, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued a memorandum opinion ordering the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") to respond to a Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request received from the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility ("PEER"). Public Employees for Envtl. Responsibility v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, No. 17-652 (D.D.C.). The request related to March 9, 2017, public statements made by then-Administrator Scott Pruitt expressing skepticism about the impact of human activity on global warming and stating that there is "tremendous disagreement" about whether the carbon dioxide produced by human activity is a primary factor in global warming. The day after Pruitt's comments, PEER filed a FOIA request with EPA seeking: (i) all agency records relied upon by the Administrator in making his statements; and (ii) any agency documents supporting the position that human activity is not the principal factor in promoting climate change. PEER filed a complaint when EPA did not respond within the statutory deadline, and as of the time of the decision, more than one year after the initial request, EPA had not conducted a search for responsive documents.
The district court rejected EPA's arguments that the requests were vague and unclear, overly broad and unduly burdensome, and improper for FOIA requests. The court noted that the agency may not rely on the statutory requirement that a request "reasonably describe" the records sought to deny access to responsive records, and that once the agency was "reasonably clear as to the materials desired," it has an "obligation to bring them forth." Regarding the agency's claim of undue burden, the court found that EPA did not meet its burden to "provide sufficient explanation as to why such a search would be unreasonably burdensome." The court further noted that PEER's requests were not an improper subject of a FOIA request, noting that the request sought only those documents relied on by Pruitt or supporting his statements, and did not require the agency to conduct its own scientific analysis or exercise its own judgment. Finally, the court noted that even if Pruitt's public statements reflected a personal opinion rather than an agency decision, agency documents supporting those opinions were proper grounds for a FOIA request.
The case offers several key takeaways that could shape future FOIA requests directed to EPA and the agency's responses thereto. First, the D.C. District Court made it clear that EPA can be called upon to produce documents supporting or relied on to formulate public positions taken by the agency, even if such statements are not official agency actions. Second, EPA's reliance on blanket statements that a specific request is overbroad, unduly burdensome, or otherwise inappropriate for a FOIA request will not be given great deference by the courts. Rather, EPA will be required to meet its burden of demonstrating the reasons and support for such positions. In other words, faced with an agency resisting the disclosure of certain records, the court issued a ruling that was strongly guided by FOIA principles favoring disclosure.
While Pruitt is no longer Administrator of EPA, the principles of this case are broader than any one Administrator or administration and may come into play in future matters concerning EPA's public statements and responses to FOIA requests generally.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
