Cornucopia Inst. v. Dep't of Agric., No. 16-215, 2017 WL 4685541 (D.D.C. Oct. 17, 2017) (Collyer, J.)

Cornucopia Inst. v. Dep't of Agric., No. 16-215, 2017 WL 4685541 (D.D.C. Oct. 17, 2017) (Collyer, J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning investigation into several organic corporations based on plaintiff's complaints

Disposition:  Granting defendant's motion for summary judgment; denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and in camera inspection

• Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search:  "[T]he Court finds the search was 'reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents.'"  Specifically responding to plaintiff's objection, the court finds that "[t]he fact that documents mentioned in the released records were not included in the agency response set does not itself indicate that the search was unreasonable and does not rebut the presumption of good faith afforded to the agency's declarations."
   
• Litigation Considerations, Vaughn Index/Declaration:  The court holds that, "[b]ecause [certain] redactions were not part of the FOIA review but are in the underlying records, the failure to explain in the Vaughn Index does not indicate a FOIA violation."
   
• Exemption 5, Deliberative Process Privilege:  "For each of the records containing redactions exempt under the deliberative process privilege, [defendant] includes a conclusory statement on its Vaughn Index that release of the information would reve[a]l ongoing policy discussions."  "Had [defendant] said no more, the Court would have agreed that its explanation was insufficient."  "However, there is more."  "In addition to the general statement, the Vaughn Index also includes more specific descriptions of each record and the analysis behind the redactions, averring that actions recommended in particular records were later adopted as policy or not and are, therefore, pre-decisional and deliberative."  "Considering the entirety of [defendant's] supporting documentation, the Court finds that [defendant] has satisfactorily explained why the particular records are deliberative under Exemption 5."
   
• Exemption 5, Attorney-Client Privilege:  The court finds that "'[e]mails between . . . Managers and . . . Office of General Counsel . . . Attorneys'" are withholdable under Exemption 5 because "'[t]he withheld communications reflect legal advice sought from OGC concerning the settlement proposals and other aspects of the . . . investigation.'"
   
• Exemptions 6 & 7(C):  The court holds that "[plaintiff] has not met its burden of demonstrating how disclosure of ["the names and identifying information of individuals involved in conducting inspection services[,]" "'[s]ignatures of private individuals,' '[p]ersonal email addresses of private individuals,' '[p]ersonal telephone numbers of private individuals,' and '[n]ames and identifying information of private individuals discussed as potential providers of voluntary mediation services.'"] would allow the public to 'learn more about how the investigation was conducted,' but has instead merely concluded that the information is 'important' to the public."  "Because [plaintiff] has not identified a public interest sufficient to outweigh the privacy interest of the individuals, the Court finds [defendant] has properly withheld the information under Exemptions 6 and 7(C)."
   
• Exemption 7(D):  "While the Court does not find on this record that the information was properly withheld under Exemption 7(D), it was properly withheld under Exemption 6."  The court relates that there is no indication of express confidentiality and "[t]he 'crime' at issue is a failure to comply with USDA organic certification requirements, which does not weigh in favor of a finding of [implied] confidentiality because there is no indication that companies seek retribution from individuals who investigate organic certifications."
   
• Exemption 7(E):  The court holds that "[t]here is no evidence to support [plaintiff's] assertion that the techniques at issue are already known to the public and [defendant], to the contrary, has explained that the methods used to investigate compliance are finely tuned to the type of commodity, production method, and handling and business practices at issue."  "Therefore, [defendant] logically explains that knowledge of its methods with respect to the . . . investigation would shed significant light on the techniques used in a similar investigation and could help similar producers 'evade the requirements of USDA organic regulations.'"  The court holds that "[defendant] has met the relatively low burden of Exemption 7(E)."
   
• Litigation Considerations, "Reasonably Segregable" Requirements:  The court holds that, "[i]n addition to [defendant's] declaration, which affirms that a line-by-line segregability analysis was conducted, [defendant] provided a revised Vaughn Index which described each type of record that contained redacted information, the exact type of information that was redacted, and the relevant exemption justifying the redaction."  "Taking those submissions together, the Court finds that [defendant] has adequately explained that all segregable information has been provided and only exempt information was redacted."
   
• Litigation Considerations, In Camera Inspection:  The court holds that "[b]ecause this case is not one where the agency's declarations are '"insufficiently detailed to permit meaningful review of exemption claims,"' in camera review is unnecessary."