Protect Democracy Project, Inc. v. DOD, No. 17-00842, 2017 WL 2992076 (D.D.C. July 13, 2017) (Cooper, J.)

Protect Democracy Project, Inc. v. DOD, No. 17-00842, 2017 WL 2992076 (D.D.C. July 13, 2017) (Cooper, J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning President's legal authority to launch certain missile strikes

Disposition:  Granting in part and denying in part plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction

• Procedural Requirements, Expedited Processing:  The court holds that "[Plaintiff] is entitled to a preliminary injunction directing the expedited processing of its requests."  The court first notes that "[b]ecause the DOJ components have already granted [plaintiff's] expedition requests, only DOD's and State's denials remain relevant to this issue."  The court then finds that "[plaintiff's] representations likely established that [plaintiff] is 'primarily engaged in disseminating information.'"  "The organization noted in both requests that it 'intend[ed] to disseminate the information obtained'; that its 'core mission . . . is to inform public understanding on operations and activities of government,' including by 'gather [ing] [sic] and disseminat[ing] information that is likely to contribute significantly to the public understanding of executive branch operations and activities'; and that it 'intend[ed] to give the public access to documents transmitted via FOIA on [its] website.'"  The court then finds that "[t]here is little doubt . . that 'the subject matter of the request[s] [is] central to a pressing issue of the day.'"  "Relatedly, the Court also finds it likely that a significant delay in processing [plaintiff's] requests would 'compromise a significant recognized interest.'"  The court explains that "if production is unduly delayed, both [plaintiff] and the public at large will be 'precluded . . . from obtaining in a timely fashion information vital to the current and ongoing debate surrounding the legality of' a high-profile government action, . . . namely, military strikes against the Syrian government."  "Being closed off from such a debate is itself a harm in an open democracy."  "[And] there is another potential harm, too: The possibility for the strikes to recur without legal justification."  Finally, the court holds that "[t]he recent escalation in hostilities between U.S. and Syria, plus indications from the White House that another chemical weapons attack may be in the offing, make it more likely that irreparable harm will result without expedited processing of [plaintiff's] requests."
   
• Litigation Considerations, Preliminary Injunctions:  The court holds that "all four preliminary injunction factors counsel against requiring Defendants to process [plaintiff's] requests by a date certain."  First, "[i]n light of Defendants' representations that they are actively processing [plaintiff's] requests, and without evidence to the contrary, the Court finds that the merits weigh in favor of Defendants.  Second, the court finds that "[plaintiff] has not demonstrated that it will experience irreparable harm without an order directing processing by a date certain."  "Finally, 'the balance of equities' and 'the public interest' . . . previously on the side of [plaintiff], here favor Defendants."  "Imposing on Defendants an arbitrary deadline for processing would run the risk of overburdening them, and could even lead to the mistaken release of protected information."