Hall & Associates v. EPA, No. 19-1095, 2020 WL 4673411 (D.D.C. Aug. 12, 2020) (Contreras, J.)

Hall & Associates v. EPA, No. 19-1095, 2020 WL 4673411 (D.D.C. Aug. 12, 2020) (Contreras, J.)

Re:  Request for certain EPA email distribution lists

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

• Exemption 6:  "[T]he Court finds that EPA properly invoked Exemption 6 to withhold both email distribution lists at issue."  First, "the Court concludes that the emails contained in the distribution lists fall within the scope of 'similar files.'"  "The email distribution lists contain 'bits of personal information' that normally remain private unless shared."  "Unlike a list of blood types, which cannot be tied to any individual, a list of email addresses allows for immediate communication with the email account owners; email addresses are unique identifiers just like physical addresses and they can be identified with their owner."  Second, "[a]s an initial matter, the Court notes a distinction between email addresses held privately – email addresses not available through any public source – and email addresses available publicly, such as an official email address for a business or organization."  The court finds that "[c]ourts in this District have routinely held that release of privately held email addresses would implicate a privacy interest."  Additionally, "[c]ourts have also upheld the withholding of email addresses used for work purposes where they are not publicly available."  "As such, the following analysis relates only to those email addresses that are privately held; the Court discusses publicly available email addresses that may appear on the distribution lists in its discussion of segregability below."  Separately, "[t]he Court finds that while disclosure of the privately held email addresses may implicate a rather modest privacy interest, it is more than de minimis."  "Plaintiff claims that unwanted solicitation is unlikely and, even if it does occur, ignoring and deleting an email is easy enough to render the invasion of privacy de minimis."  "The Court disagrees."  "As pointed out by EPA, Plaintiff admits it wants to utilize the email distribution lists to contact the individuals – it is plausible that others would want to do the same."  Third, regarding the public interest, "[t]he Court finds that Plaintiff's first proffered public interest in disclosure does not outweigh the private interests at stake."  "Plaintiff claims that release of the distribution lists 'would inform the public to whom the Government is' communicating and suggests that release would reveal parties that 'seek to influence agency policy and decisions.'"  "While it is true that releasing the distribution lists would reveal who received the email communications at issue, the agency declarations demonstrate that, because of how the lists were constructed, disclosure would not 'she[d] light on [EPA’s] performance of its statutory duties.'"  "EPA explains that email addresses are added to the lists when an individual either self-registers (by text message or through the website) or attends a conference where EPA is an exhibitor."  "Appearing on these lists does not by itself suggest any effort to influence the decision making of the agency."  "On balance, the Court finds that the interest in controlling the dissemination of a private email address outweighs the virtually nonexistent public interest in disclosure."
   
• Procedural Requirements, "Reasonably Segregable" Obligation:  "Because of the difficulties in definitively identifying public email addresses and the 'significant time and expense required to analyze' the lists with tens of thousands of email addresses, EPA determined that 'the information is not reasonably segregable.'"  "The Court finds that the justification provided by EPA sufficiently demonstrates that all reasonably segregable material has been released."  "The agency laid out in detail the steps it took to determine how many email addresses could only be associated with a business or public entity."  "The declarations indicate that, to the extent it is even possible to definitively distinguish between privately held and publicly available email addresses, a very small percentage of the email addresses would fit the criteria."  "Although a literal line-by-line review has not been conducted, the Court is satisfied that EPA’s method supports its claim that any non-exempt information is not reasonably segregable."
   
• Fees and Fee Waivers, Fees:  The court holds that "[b]ased on EPA's explanation of the additional work required to complete the request, and Plaintiff's failure to meaningfully address that explanation, the Court finds that the requested fee is reasonable."  The court holds that "Plaintiff does not dispute EPA's description of the additional work completed to process the request."  "'Plaintiff offers no substantive response to EPA's argument,' . . . and instead suggests that the only work that should matter is the application of the block redaction."  "'A plaintiff's bare allegation that a fee assessment is unreasonable, however, is insufficient to avoid summary judgment.'"