Orlansky v. DOJ, No. 15-0649, 2016 WL 900631 (D.D.C. Mar. 9, 2016) (Jackson, J.)

Orlansky v. DOJ, No. 15-0649, 2016 WL 900631 (D.D.C. Mar. 9, 2016) (Jackson, J.)

Re: Request for records concerning third parties and plaintiff

Disposition: Granting defendant's motion for summary judgment

• Exemption 5, Deliberative Process Privilege & Attorney Work-Product:  "The Court finds the [responsive] emails to be attorney work product and, thus, protected from disclosure under exemption 5."  The court finds that the withheld material consisted of "'privileged email communications among government attorneys' about [a] U.S. Attorney['s] . . . 'possible recusal from certain civil or criminal matters.'"  Additionally, "[t]he 'underlying discussions were related to ongoing or contemplated litigation or negotiations.'"  "According to EOUSA's declarant, '[t]he government attorneys involved in [the] email discussions were acting as legal advisors to the agency[,]' and 'in each instance, litigation was either ongoing or contemplated.'"  The court notes that its finding concerning the applicability of the attorney work-product privilege "essentially ends the matter because 'if a document is fully protected as work product, segregability is not required.'"  "Nevertheless, the Court finds that defendants properly asserted the deliberative process privilege as well since the withheld emails reflect the agency's 'back and forth discussions,' pondering potential 'outcomes of [the] U.S. Attorney['s] . . . recusal from certain matters."
   
• Procedural Requirements, Proper FOIA Requests:  In response to plaintiff's "demand[] 'to know WHY [a] U.S. Attorney . . . recused himself and what were the conflict of interest he had in Defendant Criminal case and Civil matters[,]'" the court finds that it "cannot compel defendants 'to answer questions ... or to create documents or opinions in response to [plaintiff's] request for information.'"