FOIA Advisor

Q&A (2015-2023)

Q&A: The wheels of justice turn slowly

Q&A (2015-2023)Allan BlutsteinComment

Q.  According to an acknowledgment email, the DOJ's National Security Division received our FOIA request on the 20th of July. Yet as of this time, there is no response. What are my options?

A.  The DOJ's response to your request was due within 20 business days, which by my calculation is August 17, 2018.  If "unusual circumstances" apply to your request, however, DOJ may notify you that it is taking an additional 10 business days to process your request.  Once the response deadline passes (whenever that may be), you are entitled to file a lawsuit in federal court.

Short of a lawsuit, you might consider asking NSD's FOIA public liaison for an estimated date of completion.  According to DOJ's most recent FOIA annual report, NSD takes an average of about 342 days to process "complex" requests and 31 days to process "simple" requests.  Thus, if the acknowledgment letter does not indicate which processing track your requests falls into, you should ask the NSD liaison.  

Other options include asking NARA's Office of Government Information Services for assistance.  Keep in mind, however, that OGIS cannot compel an agency to speed up a response.  Another means of prodding the agency would be to contact your Congressperson, who will then forward your concerns to the agency with a less-than-passionate request for assistance.  

Q&A: Virginia is for lovers?

Q&A (2015-2023)Allan BlutsteinComment

Q.  I submitted a FOIA request as a citizen of Virginia. Soon after, three people of the local government including the Board of Supervisor chairman contacted my employer to file a complaint. I received the information requested, but is it a violation of FOIA to harass and intimidate an individual by contacting their employer?

A.  The Virginia Freedom of Information Act does not address the unfortunate behavior you have described. Other state laws or local policies might apply, but you should confer with an attorney licensed in the Commonwealth for legal advice.   

P.S. The Virginia FOIA does not prevent you from submitting a follow-up FOIA request that seeks copies of the offenders emails about you (or any other topic of interest),  as well as their personnel files, work calendars, travel expenses, etc.

Q&A: Defense contractors on the lookout?

Q&A (2015-2023)Ryan MulveyComment

Q. Is it possible, under the FOIA, to obtain information about the list of companies that will be audited by the Defense Contract Management Agency ("DCMA")?

A. Records concerning prospective or scheduled audits are likely controlled by multiple agencies within the Department of Defense ("DOD").  DCMA is primarily tasked with contract administration; after a contract is awarded, DCMA ensures contractor performance.  Formal auditing before and after a contract award, however, appears to be undertaken by the Defense Contract Audit Agency ("DCAA").  If you are looking for records concerning companies under audit, or which are slated for audit, then you should consider submitting FOIA requests to both DCMA and DCAA.

That being said, any responsive records are likely to be heavily redacted or withheld in full.  First, these records could be protected by Exemption 5, insofar as they reflect DOD's deliberations about which contractors to audit (or not to audit!).  Second, to extent the records contain specific details about any one contractor, Exemption 4 may be used to withhold privileged or confidential business information.  Finally, depending on what sort of audits we're talking about, Exemption 7 could be in play, too.  Routine administrative or oversight audits arguably do not fall within the scope of a "law enforcement purpose," unless they are later connected to another investigation.  But if there is any nexus between a scheduled audit and an examination of potential illegality, then the agency could have a colorable Exemption 7 argument and it will be that much more difficult to get useful information.

Q&A: Attention Ponch and Jon

Q&A (2015-2023)Allan BlutsteinComment

Q.  I submitted requests to the California Highway Patrol for video records and received the following response:  "As your request relates to item 2, the PRU has determined it possesses the record sought; however, your request does not describe an item which falls within the definition of public records pursuant to Government Code section 6254(e).  Moreover, assuming the item requested did constitute a public record, an exemption applies pursuant to government code section 6254(k) as it relates to Penal Code 1054 subdivision (e) and the record is being withheld." 

I have never encountered such a claim before, and despite a fair bit of research I don't understand what CHP is claiming. The video record is from a helicopter camera and it captures the end of a police chase. There is a ground-based dash camera video record capturing the same chase. CHP did not claim any exemptions for that video and they intend to release it.

A.  I have not found a California court decision that has considered an agency's use of Penal Code 1054(e), in conjunction with 6254(k), as the basis for withholding records requested under the Public Records Act.  For further assistance, you might wish to contact an attorney licensed in the State of California.  Although I cannot endorse any particular attorney or organization, I will note that the First Amendment Coalition, a non-profit organization in San Rafael, California, frequently fields questions about the PRA.   

Q&A: See me, Feel me

Q&A (2015-2023)Allan BlutsteinComment

Q.  It has been 8 business days since we made a FOIA request to the DOJ. We have not received an acknowledgement letter or tracking number yet. DOJ's website states DOJ "ordinarily will send you a letter acknowledging the request ..."  How common is it for them not to send an acknowledgement letter?

A.  The statute requires agencies to assign a tracking number after 10 days, see 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(7)(A), and most agencies will acknowledge a request within a few weeks of receipt.  If you are concerned about whether your request was received, or simply are eager to get a tracking number, you might wish to contact the agency's FOIA Public Liaison.

Q&A: Is something rotten in the state of California?

Q&A (2015-2023)Allan BlutsteinComment

Q.  I formally requested copies of a [California] city's  bank reconciliations and the City sent the following response:  "The City has located responsive documents, but they are exempt from disclosure under California Government Code 6255.” No other explanation was given.  Since these are public taxpayer funds subject to full transparency, and the potential for embezzlement could be in the millions of dollars, can you please explain why this information would be exempt?

A.   Section 6255 of the California Government Code is a “catchall” exemption that agencies may rely upon when they can show that the public interest in nondisclosure clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure.  The following guidance from the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press explains Section 6255 in more detail.  The League of California Cities also has issued guidance on the Public Records Act (including Section 6255) that might be instructive.  

Q&A: Indiana here I come?

Q&A (2015-2023)Allan BlutsteinComment

Q.  Can I request all documents and emails containing my name and address from Indiana Child Protective Services that they have from this year ?

A.  I am not sufficiently familiar with Indiana's Access to Public Records Act (APRA) to predict with certainty how the agency would likely process your request.  I suspect, however, that you would not be able to obtain records of any complaints or pending investigations about you, for example, nor records of third parties in which you are merely mentioned.  For a more informed answer, you might wish to contact a lawyer licensed to practice in the State of Indiana or  Indiana's Public Access Counselor, which provides free assistance to the public concerning records access laws.  

Q&A: Is there anybody out there?

Q&A (2015-2023)Allan BlutsteinComment

Q.  I sent a FOIA request to an agency in Illinois and it is has completely ignored the request.  What can be done?  Can I get any relief and/or financial compensation?

A.  If you believe that an agency has violated the Illinois FOIA, you might consider asking the Attorney General's Public Access Counselor to review your request.  The instructions for submitting such a request are available here.  There are three ways that the PAC may resolve a request for review:

(1) Decide that no further review is necessary.  If the PAC decides that the alleged violations of FOIA are unfounded, the PAC will advise the requester and the public body of that decision. The PAC will not conduct any further review. 

(2)  Work to resolve the FOIA dispute with the public body. (5 ILCS 140/9.5(f)) The PAC may choose to mediate the dispute or resolve the matter by means other than the issuance of a binding opinion. The PAC’s decision to refuse to issue a binding opinion is not reviewable.

(3) Issue a binding opinion.  The PAC will review any information needed to analyze the FOIA dispute and any additional information that the requester or the public body provides. If the PAC decides to issue a binding opinion, the PAC must issue that opinion within 60 calendar days after receiving the Request for Review. The PAC may extend the 60-day time period by 21 business days by sending a written notice to the requester and the public body, and must include the reasons for the extension

For more information about this review process, see pages 5-8 of the following guidance.  

I do not believe that the Illinois FOIA allows requesters to recover damages for an agency's failure to produce documents.  The federal FOIA, upon which the most state public records laws are modeled, does not.  You should, however, consult with an attorney licensed in Illinois if you are interested in obtaining legal advice about the state statute. 

Q&A: Odds and ends

Q&A (2015-2023)Allan BlutsteinComment

Q.  Why must tax-paying U.S. citizens wait for a FOIA request, which according to FOIA takes 3-6 months minimum, while non-tax-paying visitors to the U.S. have the option of an online I-94 form request that provides immediate access to records?

A.  The online form to which you refer was launched by the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol in 2014 and permits travelers to retrieve their I-94 arrival/departure record number and five-year travel history.  The I-94 system was automated in order to increase efficiency and streamline the admission process for the traveling public.  It appears as if holders of U.S. passports also are able retrieve their traveling histories.   

Q.  I sent a FOIL request to the New York County DA’s office and they said  that it would take three weeks.  That time has come and gone and I cannot get a definitive time frame for a response.  What can I do?

A.   If you believe the District Attorney's response to your FOIL request has been unreasonably delayed, you might consider submitting an administrative appeal to that office or asking for a written advisory opinion from the New York Department of State's Committee on Open Government.  The Committee has addressed the issue of delays in several advisory opinions.  See, e.g., https://docs.dos.ny.gov/coog/ftext/f18008.html.  If you ultimately wish to litigate the matter, I can only suggest that you confer with an attorney in New York.  

Q&A: Overcoming Exemption One "Glomarization"

Q&A (2015-2023)Ryan MulveyComment

Q.  What is the best process for challenging a refusal by the CIA to confirm or deny the existence of records under Section 3.6(a) of Executive Order 13526?

A.  The type of determination to which you are referring is known as a “Glomar response” or “Glomarization.”  Although an agency can issue a Glomar response based on different FOIA exemptions, the relevant one in your case is Exemption One, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1).

Exemption One permits an agency to withhold information “specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy.”  Such information must not only qualify for classification but “in fact [be] properly classified.”  Executive Order 13526 sets forth the current standards and procedures for national security classification.  It identifies both the substantive categories of information that can be classified (e.g., military plans) and the procedural requirements that an agency must satisfy to effect classification.

Executive Order 13526 also provides non-disclosure protection for the fact of the existence of records.  Under Section 3.6(a), “[a]n agency may refuse to confirm or deny the existence or nonexistence of requested records whenever the fact of their existence or nonexistence is itself classified under this order or its predecessors.”  On a “mosaic” or “compilation” theory, this protection can even extend to sets of non-classified records that implicate national security concerns when considered in the aggregate.

FOIA requesters usually rely on two methods to overcome an Exemption One Glomar response.  First, while in litigation, a requester can challenge the affidavit providing the basis for an agency’s refusal to confirm or deny the existence of records.  An affidavit may lack specificity or vital details, or it may contradict other available evidence regarding the existence of the requested records.  There could be an independent basis to prove bad faith on the part of the government in handling the FOIA request or records at issue.  Challenging an agency affidavit is difficult.  Courts tend to defer to agencies in the FOIA context, and deference to agency expertise in national security cases is even stronger.

A requester can also challenge a Glomar response based on “waiver”—that is, by proving that the fact of the existence of records is already in the public domain and, moreover, has been “officially acknowledged.”  In the D.C. Circuit, "official acknowledgement" means that the requested records (or, in this case, the fact of those records' existence) are (1) as “specific” as those previously released, (2) “match” the information previously disclosed, and (3) were disclosed in an “official and documented” manner.  To illustrate: in National Security Archive v. Central Intelligence Agency, a court accepted a waiver argument when a requester sought biographies on seven former Eastern European heads of state and the CIA had already officially acknowledged that it kept biographies on all “heads of state.”  Widespread media coverage about the existence of records will be insufficient.  Similarly, general comments from a public official—even in testimony before Congress—may not satisfy the standard.