Cmty. Ass'n for Restoration of the Env't v. EPA, No. 13-3067, 2014 WL 3870168 (E.D. Wash. Aug. 6, 2014) (Rice, J.)

Cmty. Ass'n for Restoration of the Env't v. EPA, No. 13-3067, 2014 WL 3870168 (E.D. Wash. Aug. 6, 2014) (Rice, J.)

Re: Requests for records concerning certain dairies in Lower Yakima Valley, Washington, and nitrate contamination in residential drinking water near dairies

Disposition: Granting in part and denying in part defendant's motion for summary judgment; denying plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment

• Litigation Considerations, Mootness and Other Grounds for Dismissal:  The court holds that "all records requested have either been produced or withheld pursuant to a FOIA exemption."  The court finds that "[plaintiff] cannot, under the FOIA, challenge the individual timeliness of production or the Agency's compliance with statutory or regulatory guidelines with respect to documents that have been produced."  "[Plaintiff] can challenge the EPA's withholdings under the exemptions as well as claim that there is an impermissible pattern or practice in responding to FOIA requests."  However, the court finds that "production of requested nonexempt material moots FOIA claims."  The court reminds plaintiff that "the D.C. Circuit explicitly held that the agency's penalty for not making a timely determination is that it 'cannot rely on the administrative exhaustion requirement to keep cases from getting into court.'"
  
  Regarding plaintiff's pattern and practice claim, although the court finds that "[plaintiff's] interest in the timely production of the documents is sufficient to meet the 'injury-in-fact' requirement for standing," the court holds that "the undisputed facts show only one violation of the timeliness in responding to CARE's FOIA requests-and demonstrates a delay of only a few days."  The court holds that "[c]ommon sense dictates that a single violation cannot constitute a 'pattern' or a 'practice'" and, "[a]ccordingly, the Court finds that CARE's pattern and practice claim must fail." 
   
• Attorney Fees, Eligibility:  The court "finds that [plaintiff] has not sustained its burden of showing that the filing of the lawsuit had a 'substantial causative effect' on the EPA's decision to release the records."  The court agrees with defendant's "conten[tion] that circumstances changed when, a month after the lawsuit was filed, [one] Dairy sold its cows and ceased operating as a dairy; as such, its production of the documents was in response to those 'changed circumstances' rather than [plaintiff's] lawsuit."