Taylor Energy Co. LLC v. DOI, No. 16-388, 2017 WL 4236522 (D.D.C. Sept. 21, 2017) (Howell, C. J.)

Taylor Energy Co. LLC v. DOI, No. 16-388, 2017 WL 4236522 (D.D.C. Sept. 21, 2017) (Howell, C. J.)

Re:  Request for records that formed basis for statements posted on Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement's website concerning plaintiff's response to an incident on plaintiff's former oil platform in Gulf of Mexico

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

• Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search:  "Based upon the detailed description of how the search was conducted, [the court holds that] [defendant] has met its burden of showing that the search was adequate."  The court relates that "[defendant's] officers 'searched all their electronic and paper records, and directed those employees who report to them and who they reasonably believed might potentially have responsive records to search their records as well.'"  Responding to plaintiff's arguments, the court finds that "the adequacy of an agency's search is judged by the methods utilized and not by the results of the search."  Additionally, the court finds that "[defendant] was not required to answer the plaintiff’s interrogatories by taking the plaintiff's desired steps."  "[Defendant] did not search by authors' names and instead used broader search terms because the agency believed the broader search terms would produce a greater number of responsive documents."
   
• Exemption 5, Deliberative Process Privilege & Attorney-Client Privilege:  The court holds that "defendants have sufficiently demonstrated that [they] properly invoked Exemption 5 to withhold information in the five disputed documents."  First, the court finds that "four emails were properly withheld under Exemption 5" because they were "'discussing [a] draft . . . memorandum' and 'confidential communications between agency officials and an agency attorney, encompassing facts provided by the client, responding to the attorney's request for clarification concerning specific statements in the draft document, and providing advice from the attorney.'"  Second, the court holds that defendant properly withheld a "single email within an email chain[]" because "the email chain [was] '[an] attorney's email reports to agency clients'" and was "'related to decisions that the U.S. government was considering.'" Third, the court finds that defendant properly withheld "'two different drafts of the [at-issue] memorandum'" because "[defendants'] explanations are adequate to demonstrate the predecisional and deliberative nature of the information."  Fourth, for similar reasons, the court finds that defendant properly withheld "'a nearly final, but unsigned, version of the same memorandum.'"
   
• Litigation Considerations, "Reasonably Segregable" Requirements:  The court finds that "[defendant's] met their segregability burdens by submitting attestations of their respective declarants that documents were reviewed 'on a page by page, line-by-line basis' and no further segregation would be possible."