Reyes v. EPA, No. 10-2030, 2014 WL 2620987 (D.D.C. June 13, 2014) (Sullivan, J.)

Reyes v. EPA, No. 10-2030, 2014 WL 2620987 (D.D.C. June 13, 2014) (Sullivan, J.)

Re: Request for records concerning EPA's finding that certain greenhouse gases taken in combination endanger public health and welfare

Disposition: Granting defendant's renewed motion for summary judgment

• Exemption 5:  "The Court is satisfied that EPA has fulfilled this burden based on [defendant's] most recent Declaration . . . [which] . . . provide[d] the redacted documents as attachments . . . , and, more importantly, describe[d] the information that was redacted or withheld in detail."  The court explains that it previously "denied EPA's first Motion for Summary Judgment as to records withheld pursuant to the attorney client privilege for two reasons: (1) EPA failed to specify who received the documents, thus it did not establish the communications were confidential; and (2) EPA failed to explain the recipients' responsibilities, thus, it did not establish that the recipients were authorized to act or speak for the government in relation to the subject matter of the communication."  The court finds that defendant has now explained that "[t]he documents are email chains between agency counsel and other agency staff," "each document pertains to an issue for which EPA sought the legal advice of its lawyers," and "[t]he senders and recipients were limited to EPA attorneys, scientists, analysts, support staff, or senior executives who were responsible for developing EPA's position on the underlying environmental issues."
   
• Litigation Considerations, "Reasonably Segregable" Requirements:  "The Court is satisfied that EPA has fulfilled this burden based on [defendant's] most recent Declaration."  The court explains that defendant "provides the redacted documents as attachments to [its] Declaration, and, more importantly, describes the information that was redacted or withheld in detail."
   
• Procedural Requirements, Searching for Responsive Records:  First, "[t]he Court finds that the EPA's explanation, derived from multiple planning meetings by EPA and [Climate Change Division] staff to determine how to respond to Plaintiff's broad and complex request, demonstrates that EPA appropriately approached Plaintiff's requests, and that searches for documents that it never had or no longer possessed would be futile."  Second, the court finds that "[defendant's] Declarations 'describe in ... detail what records were searched, by whom, and through what process.'"  "Moreover, plaintiff does not identify other files, search terms, documents, offices, or individuals which would likely possess responsive records to these subparts."  The court finds that "[p]laintiff misunderstands the standard for adequacy of a search under FOIA."  The court explains that "[a]s this Circuit has made clear, '[t]he issue is not whether any further documents might conceivably exist but rather whether the government's search for responsive documents was adequate.'"