Almeda v. Dep't of Educ., No. 17-2641, 2020 WL 601628 (D.D.C. Fe. 7, 2020) (Chutkan, J.)

Almeda v. Dep't of Educ., No. 17-2641, 2020 WL 601628 (D.D.C. Feb. 7, 2020) (Chutkan, J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning Interagency Working Group established to analyze barriers faced by Filipino veterans in obtaining compensation for their service

Disposition:  Granting defendants' motion for summary judgment; denying plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment

• Exemption 5, Deliberative Process Privilege:  "[T]he court . . . finds that the VA has sufficiently established that the withheld material properly falls within Exemption 5."  The court holds that "each of the contested Bates page ranges is predecisional and deliberative because each relates to the drafting process of a blog post."  Regarding "an email and attachment that the VA withheld, but that [plaintiff] nonetheless obtained, and argues that its contents are not deliberative," the court finds that "[t]he email in question describes the timing of the publication, the draft at a particular stage in the process, and the roles played by various members in the drafting process."  "The email and associated attachment are thus protected because they represent the 'content[s] of drafts' and 'the drafting process itself.'"  The court also holds that "[it] need not reach the issue of whether the names [of the authors] are properly withheld under Exemption 6 because it finds they are properly withheld under Exemption 5."  "Because the underlying documents are . . . deliberative, and because the redacted names are those of the authors of those deliberative documents, the court finds that the names were properly withheld."
   
• Procedural Requirements, "Reasonable Segregable" Obligation:  "[B]ecause disclosure of the factual material could reveal deliberative judgments, the court finds that withholding this material does not violate the VA's obligation to disclose reasonably segregable material."  Additionally, "the court finds that ED complied with the obligation to disclose reasonably segregable material" because "[plaintiff] merely asserts that ED failed to release segregable information without providing any evidence in support thereof."
   
• Litigation Considerations, Vaughn Index/Declaration:  "Because [plaintiff] provides no explanation for the assertion that there are documents excluded from the Vaughn Index, and further provides no evidence to support such an assertion, the court finds that [defendant] properly included all withheld information on the Vaughn Index."