Free Declaration in Support - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-04997-MHP
: : / 1 7 i ? l ) S 6 TUP l 4 : 4 C
FAX

Document 19-4
D A Y ARZA

Filed 01/25/2008

Page 1 of 3
a$02/bls

115436968? CBD SF

OPFICE

CENTER FOR BlOLOGlCAL DIVERSITY
November 7,2006

SEST VIA FACSIMILE AND O\'ER?NIGHT CTS
Donald Hawkins POLA Oficer. Officeof Mmagment and Budget 721 17111SIrrer NW,Room 9026 Washington,DC 20503 Fax (202) 395-3504
Kathy Rny

Departmental FOIA Officer C-12iRoom 5432 400 Seventh St.. SW Washington. D.C. 20590 Fax: (202) 3GG-8536 Re;FOIA Filc 2006-255

FREEDOM OF In'FOR3L4TION ACT APPEAL
Dcar FOIA Appeal Officcrs:

On behalf of the Center for Biologicnl Diversity ("tine Center"). and pursunnt to the Freedom of I~~fom~ntio~i5 II.S.C, 5 552 et set]. ('"FOIA':), I arm wri~ing respond to thc Officc of Ad, to
Management and Budget's denial of the Center's August 29.2006, POlA request. The Ausst 29 FOIA ~ s k for the following information: d

AU documents reluting to the dcvclopmcnt of t)lr Find Rulc setring average
fuel Economy standards for light trucks for model years 2008-2011 (71 Fcd. Rcg. 1'156617679, "rulcmakincinp") &at are not nlrcndy posted on the internet in Docket Nos. 2005-22223 and 2006-24309. T i request indudes hs communications onrong staff and with others that ware created during the devetopmcnt of the F i a l Rulc and the Proposed Rule (70 Fed. Reg. 514 IJ51466). This request inchtdcs but is not liruired to e-mail cxchmnges or other correspondcncc among ngency staff and h c n v c c ~ ~ rgcncy staff and others, h a f t documents, intcrnal revie~vs critiqurn. inter-agcncy reviews, and agency mcMingnoter, ctc.

T~;ion

.

P h o e n ~ r S;* f,an;ir;o

.

Sjr i ~ c p a L. C

JuS;ir Hugus!lne. S l a f f H:twney Phone: 4 1 j.436-95B2 a332

.

aeelcr.

.orhuil -:c:

P:ncn i l : o s ' Po.limu

Vlashine:orz, 3C

1095 Market St.. Suitr 5 i l ' :an ir~nC;scO. 9G103 CA

'ax: 415-436-9683 ~du~~sline@bio:~gicai~Jiwrsity.clg

.

?

7

Case 3:07-cv-04997-MHP
2 ?

4

:

PAX 4 1 5 4 3 6 3 6 9 3 C30

Document 19-4

SF BAY ARZh 09PLCE

Filed 01/25/2008

Page 2 of 3

On Oaober 12,2006, the Office of b4nnagemcnt md Budgc: ("OMB") repllcd ro the request stating that the request "is ovmly bload." h e Exhibit B.
On October 20,2006, the U.S. D c p m e n t of Transporta~jon ("USDOT) responded in similar lashion stating chat the requcsl is '*cxt~cmcly broad," snd "would tsrgcr a volumirlous amotuit of infomation and would require an extensive and potentially burdensome a r c h and review of large numbers of files and documcnrs." & Exhibit C.

Thc Crnrer fecls that its request ib already detailed ellough and belicvcs that II is ilol too broad or too burdensome for the follow in^ reasons. The Supranc Court has clearly stiatcd that FOIA seeks "to cstnblisl~ general philosophy of full a apcncy disclosure$ unless information is exempted undcr clcarly delineared statutory Ian wage.'' ?
i,

In rcgard ro the defail that FOIA requests must con9in FOlA cxplicitly states ilu! a request must 'teuonably describe" therecords dcsircd. 5 USCS 552(a)(3~(A). P poinrcd out in Yeailer v. U Drug Enforwnent ,Ad&, 'Vrc Linchpin inquiry is whether the agency is able ro d c t m i n e `precisely what records (KC) bcingrequesred."' 220 U.S. ~ p pD.C. 1,33 (D.C. Cir. 1962) . (citing S.Rcp. No. 854, 93d Cong., 2d Srss. 10 (1974); Source Book at 162: H.Rep. No. 876, 93d Cong., 2d Srss. 5-6 (1 974), U.S.Codt Col~g. Admin.Ncws, p. 6267; Source Bookat 125-26); & slsoevton v, Reno, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXlS 12125,3-4 (D.D.C. 1999) ("A request resmnahly describes reccrds if the ngency is sbls to dcreminc prcciscly what rccordr ore being ryuesttd."). The C~ntcr'aAuysl29, 2006, request dots just what FOIA asks-it "rensonnbly" des~7ibes the docrrmcnls desired and evLn points the ngency to rhe specific final agency decision at issue, the Final Rule setting average fuel ecoriomg standxds for light trucks for ~nodcl years 2006-201 1. There is 1 0 question that OMG and USDOT can "determine precisely whof records arc beitr~ 1 requested." lfthe rccord addresses average fuel economy standards for light trucks Formodcl years 2008-2011, then it fa[]&wiulin thc request. In fzct. his is just the type of ~equest that agcncics should he prepared for. Uhilc nu ogcncy could obviously not prcpnrc well f o or ~ anticipate ii request askjug, for instmcc, for all docummrs uith inc word Scicnrology in it, it k quite reasonable to assulnc O u t records adciressink a final ilgcncy rule would be orgsnizud sucli that they could bc rcadily accessed.
Tm is likewise nu reason U~at rcqncsted docummts should bc prohibitivdy volurrdnous. h the The Center's request is in no way a "broad, sweeping, indiscriminate request for product in^^ Iscku1g m y specificity.'' lroniv. Schuyler, 465 F.2d 608,612 (DC Cir. 1972). To theconlrary. dlc I.equrr;r dcals udh onc specific agncy decision and is not at d l compmable to situations by American Federalion of where requcrts were deemed "unduly" burdenso~ne the courts.

FOIA Appeal (OMB and USDOT (FOIA File 2006-293)) Page 2 of 3

1!101/:b56

Case 3:07-cv-04997-MHP
TUZ l C : 0 d
PAX 4:5636?6!3

CBD 5F BAY AREA :?? I: F:

Document 19-4

Filed 01/25/2008

Page 3 of 3

Govemmcnt E r n n l p ~ s . ~ . y & ~ 1j.S. Den'! of Commercr;, 907 F.2d 203, 208 @.C. Cir, v. 1990)(tweasonable to require a search of "evc:y chror~ologicalofice file and correspondmt filc, internal and cxtcmd, for every branch office, stoff office [ctc.]."); Chiudi of'Stientolnrw v. lnlcmal Revalue Sew,, 792 F.2d 146, 151 (DC Cir. 1986) (unr&~sonable rcquires "search io lhrough every file in [the LRS'] possession lo see ifa reference to Scientology appeared"): &, 455 F.2d at 61 1-12 (unreasonable to require a search of 3,500,000 files of patents ns well as l,000,000 other files). Moreover, ncitl~er O M 3 nor USDOT 11asprovidcd any reasoning for its conclusory the assertions. To simply claim that the Center's request is somehow too broad or tao burdmsomc violatus POLA'S goals of o11eIi govenunent. &$rmstronr! v. Bush, 139 F.R.D. 547,553 (D.D.C. 1991)I,"The D.C. Circuit has hcld chat whore the agency's ability to retrievereqnestcd docummis is at issue, u 'undiacrirninating adoplion' of the agencys assertion is inappropriate 1 and could 'raise ?he specter. of casy circumvention' of Ule FOiA." (citing Founcinv. Clrurch of ScicntoIo~v.hc. vNot'l S&yy e t-, 1610F.Zd 824. 837 (D.C. Cir. 1979)) Becauseit is clear what records lhe Cenkr has requested, and bccausc rccords associated with one fino1 agency decision should not be hnduly" burdmsornc to provide, [he Ccntcr asks that O m and USDOT immediately begin lo condurx a scuch for and assemble !hc requcsted docurnmts. 7 Cer~tcr % wnsiders this letrcr to be an appeal ofboth OMB and USDOT'S rcsponscs and as such, requests P msponse wilhin 20 working h y s as mrn~da~ed MIA. 5 by U.S.C. $ 5Sb)(6)(Aj(ii). 1Cyou have a i y further qusrions please call me nt (415) 436-9682 cst. 302. Wc awslr your prompt reply.

Justin Auystinc

FOIA Appeal ( O m and USDOT (PO14 File 2006-293)) Page 3 nf 3