Power the Future v. U.S. Dep’t of State, No. 24-346, 2025 WL 343175 (D.D.C. Jan. 30, 2025) (Contreras, J.)

Power the Future v. U.S. Dep’t of State, No. 24-346, 2025 WL 343175 (D.D.C. Jan. 30, 2025) (Contreras, J.)

Re:  Request for record listing the names of federal employees working in the Office of the Special Envoy for Climate (“SPEC”)

Disposition:  Granting defendant’s motion to dismiss and for summary judgment

• Procedural Requirements, Expedited Processing; Litigation Considerations, Mootness and Other Grounds for Dismissal; Attorney Fees:  “The Court agrees with the Department that its release of the redacted record mooted [plaintiff’s] expedited processing claim, and that litigation of costs and fees must await a post-judgment motion.”  “[Plaintiff] argues that its expedited processing claim remains viable because ‘the Department has elected not to provide that document in its complete form.’”  “But ‘[t]his argument erroneously conflates the completeness of the Department’s response to [plaintiff’s] request with the adequacy of its response.’” “The Department of State has conducted its search, applied exemptions it deems appropriate, and produced the requested record to the requestor.”  “There is nothing more to expedite, and the remaining issue is whether the agency has ‘improperly withheld’ any records from [plaintiff] under Exemption 6.”  “[The] Court thus lacks jurisdiction over the expedited processing issue.”
  
  “In addition, ‘a plaintiff’s attorney’s fees claim cannot of its own accord keep alive any merits claim that would otherwise be moot.’”  “[Plaintiff’s] claim to attorney’s fees . . . must instead be brought in a post-judgment motion filed after the entry of judgment.”  “As [plaintiff’s] expedited processing claim is moot, the Department of State’s motion to dismiss that count for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is granted.”
   
• Litigation Considerations, Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies:  The court relates that “[t]he Department of State next argues that [plaintiff] did not exhaust its administrative remedies for its remaining claim regarding application of Exemption 6.”  “The Department reasons that FOIA provides the agency twenty business days to determine whether to comply with a records request, and that [plaintiff’s] inclusion of this claim in a lawsuit after eleven business days cannot be cured by filing new complaints.”  “[Plaintiff] argues that the claim became ripe when it filed an amended complaint and a new lawsuit.”  The court notes that “[plaintiff’s] original complaint filed just eleven business days after submission of its request could be seen as interfering prematurely with the Department of State’s FOIA processes.”  “The Court ultimately need not decide this exhaustion issue” because, “[a]s the Department of State properly applied Exemption 6 to the records at issue, and the FOIA claim fails on its merits, it is of no moment whether [plaintiff] properly exhausted its administrative remedies.”
   
• Exemption 6:  The court relates that “[plaintiff] claims that the Department of State has unlawfully withheld the record it requested, which lists SPEC employee names, positions, and salaries.”  The court finds that “[t]he Circuit has consistently held that ‘federal employees[ ] have privacy interests in their names . . . that must be protected.’”  “Although ‘[t]he privacy interest of civilian federal employees includes the right to control information related to themselves and to avoid disclosures that “could conceivably subject them to annoyance or harassment in either their official or private lives,”’ . . . “this ‘does not authorize a “blanket exemption” for the names of all government employees in all records[]’ . . . .”  “Rather, ‘[t]o justify [its] Exemption 6 withholdings, the defendant[ ] must show that the threat to employees’ privacy is real rather than speculative.’” “Here, the Department of State argues that the privacy interest is substantial because the requested names belong to low-level employees who may be subjected to harassment because of their positions.”  “A separate privacy interest exists because the Department of State demonstrates that these employees may be subjected to harassment based on their work for the federal government.”  “A SPEC official states that the office has witnessed ‘a significant uptick in partisan and threatening posts on social media by individuals seeking to identify SPEC staff’ in response to previous FOIA requests and congressional investigations.”  “These posts have accused SPEC employees of being ‘corrupt’ and ‘criminals’ who should be arrested.”  “People have also found publicly available email addresses for the SPEC office and sent emails threatening that ‘you are all going down,’ and hoping that the office’s head is poisoned or that his ‘jet crashes.’”  “The official therefore determined that ‘release of a list of the names of the SPEC staff would operate as a “hit list” subjecting civil servants to relentless attacks based solely on their association with SPEC.’” “[Plaintiff’s] own characterization of SPEC as ‘highly controversial’ and unsupported assertions of impropriety only add further credence to the Department of State’s concerns.” “[Plaintiff] argues that the federal employees lack a cognizable privacy interest.”  “‘Exemption 6 case law,’ it argues, ‘generally requires agency employees’ names to be released, even when that would not shed light on policymaking.’” “This assertion is unsupported by caselaw in this Circuit.”
  
  “The Department further argues that there is no public interest in disclosing the withheld names.”  “[Plaintiff] responds that there is a ‘public interest in the identities of those individuals that State admits advise “more senior” officials in a highly controversial office.’”  “[Plaintiff] seeks to equate these government employees with ‘people lobbying government officials.’”  “The Court does not follow this analogy.”  “The federal employees are not ‘well-connected corporate lobbyists,’ . . . but rather public servants.”  “It is entirely unsurprising that civil servants with ‘expertise in climate science and policy’ might advise more senior policymakers wrestling with difficult decisions.”  “[Plaintiff] does not rebut the presumption that the relevant employees are ‘neutral and apolitical,’ and there is no indication that the employees unlawfully ‘advocate for specific interest groups, industries, companies or individuals.’” “Indeed, courts attach ‘weight to the powerful and realistic presumption that the federal work force consists of dedicated and honorable civil servants.’”  “In this case, the privacy interest in avoiding harassment and targeting of low-level civil service employees outweighs whatever public interest may be served by disclosing those employees’ names.”
  
  “Finally, the Court concludes that ‘disclosure would harm an interest protected by’ Exemption 6.”  “The Department of State has explained that emails and social media posts contain threats to SPEC staff, and that the full, unredacted record may ‘operate as a “hit list” subjecting civil servants to relentless attacks based solely on their association with SPEC.’”  “This represents a ‘focused and concrete demonstration of why disclosure of the particular type of material at issue will . . . actually impede’ the privacy interests protected by Exemption 6.”  “As such, the Department of State properly applied Exemption 6 to the record at issue and is entitled to summary judgment.”