Am. Oversight v. EPA, No. 18-364, 2019 WL 1902546 (D.D.C. Apr. 29, 2019) (Kelly, J.)

Am. Oversight v. EPA, No. 18-364, 2019 WL 1902546 (D.D.C. Apr. 29, 2019) (Kelly, J.)

Re:  Plaintiff's "policy or practice" claim that defendant "refus[es] to process an otherwise reasonably described request for communications records that 'clearly identif[ies] the custodians, recipients, and date range for the requested records on the grounds that they do not specify keywords, search terms, or a particular subject matter'"

Disposition:  Granting defendant's partial motion for summary judgment; denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment

• Litigation Considerations:  "[T]he Court finds that the EPA is entitled to judgment on [plaintiff's] claim as a matter of law."  The court states that "[plaintiff] must demonstrate that the unlawful FOIA policy described above is in fact a policy 'adopted, endorsed, or implemented' by the EPA."  "And the undisputed record demonstrates that the EPA engaged in a case-by-case approach to each request that found them lacking for distinct reasons. The court relates that "[plaintiff] argues specifically that the EPA maintains a policy or practice of refusing to process any request for communications records unless it provides a subject matter or keyword for the search."  "The record, however, tells a different story."  "The EPA's responses to [plaintiff's] requests, and the requests from other organizations that [plaintiff] holds up in support of its claim, vary depending on the specifics – or lack thereof – of each request."  "For almost all the requests identified by [plaintiff], the absence of an identified subject matter or keywords was one of multiple reasons the EPA asserted it was not reasonably described and requested more information to process it."  "And the EPA provides several examples of requests it agreed to process that did not include subject matters or keywords."  "Thus, the record cannot sustain [plaintiff's] claim that the EPA has a policy of refusing to process a request unless it receives subject matters or keywords."  The court explains that "agencies, like the EPA, often engage in cooperative discussion to narrow and focus requests for the benefit of both the agency and the requester."  "Such discussions, as this action makes clear, may not always prove successful, and clarification may not always be necessary or warranted."  "As noted, however, those discussions will necessarily be context-specific, and that will likewise lead to context-specific grounds for denial."  "And for that very reason, they are generally ill-suited to the type of policy-or-practice claim that [plaintiff] brings here."