Protect Democracy Project, Inc. v. DOJ, No. 20-2810, 2020 WL 6381936 (D.D.C. Oct. 30, 2020) (Sullivan, J.)

Protect Democracy Project, Inc. v. DOJ, No. 20-2810, 2020 WL 6381936 (D.D.C. Oct. 30, 2020) (Sullivan, J.)

Re:  Request for "'[a]ny and all communications with individuals in the United States Postal Inspection Service regarding participation in any DOJ voting or voting fraud task force'"

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

Litigation Considerations, Preliminary Injunctions:  "[T]he Court finds that the balance of the equities and the public interest favor an injunction."  First, "the Court concludes that [plaintiff] has shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its request for expedited processing."  Regarding plaintiff's first argument on this point, "[t]he Court finds that [plaintiff] has 'misconstrue[d] the consequences of an agency's failure to meet' its FOIA deadlines."  The court holds that "'[i]f the agency does not adhere to FOIA's explicit timelines, the "penalty" is that the agency cannot rely on the administrative exhaustion requirement to keep cases from getting into court.'"  "'Standing alone, however, this fact does not conclusively demonstrate that the plaintiff is likely to prevail in its underlying effort to accelerate the processing of its FOIA requests and the ultimate production of any responsive, non-exempt records.'"  However, "[t]he Court next addresses [plaintiff's] argument that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that DOJ improperly denied its request for expedited treatment."  The court finds that "[i]n [plaintiff's] FOIA request, it stated that it intended to 'disseminate information and analysis about this request – and any information obtained in response – through its website . . . ; its Twitter feed . . . , which has more than 36,000 followers; its email list of approximately 30,000 people; and sharing information with other members of the press.'"  "It noted that its 'purpose' was to 'gather information of potential interest to a segment of the public, use its editorial skills to turn the raw materials into distinct work, and distribute that work to an audience.'"  "It also listed examples of previous instances when it 'disseminate[d] information about its FOIA requests to a wide audience.'"  "In addition, at least one other court in this District has recently found that [plaintiff] 'easily' satisfies the requirement that the organization is 'primarily engaged in disseminating information' based on similar statements made in a prior FOIA request."  Additionally, "the Court finds that [plaintiff's] statements in its FOIA letter likely establish that the subject matter of its requested information – DOJ's potential interference with postal services – was a matter of 'current exigency,' particularly given the imminence of Election Day and the widespread media attention to the issue of voter fraud and slowed postal service deliveries."  Also, "[t]he Court finds that [plaintiff] has established a likelihood of irreparable harm absent a preliminary injunction."  "As stated above, the Court has concluded that the subject matter of [plaintiff's] FOIA request is time sensitive due to the impending election, in which voting is already underway."  "While the Court does not conclude at this time that any responsive communications must be processed prior to Election Day – after all, new voter fraud investigations may commence subsequent to that day, particularly in view of the state laws providing that certain mail-in ballots may be received and counted up to several days after Election Day . . . Plaintiff has established that the American public has a need to know information regarding investigations into matters potentially affecting voting rights while the inquiries are still ongoing."  Finally, the court finds that "the balance of the equities and the public interest favor an injunction."  "The public interest is best 'served by the expedited release of the requested documents because it furthers FOIA's core purpose of "shed[ding] light on an agency's performance of its statutory duties."'"  "[G]iven that Election Day is days away, that a large portion of voters have already submitted their ballots by mail, and that there is significant media attention and public debate on the topic of alleged voter fraud, the public interest is particularly well-served by the timely release of the requested documents."  "There is no doubt that the subject matter of the FOIA request concerns a matter of great importance."  Responding to defendant's argument, the court finds that "'[v]ague suggestions that inadvertent release of exempted documents might occur are insufficient to outweigh the very tangible benefits that FOIA seeks to further – government openness and accountability.'"