Public Justice Foundation v. Farm Service Agency

Background

The plaintiffs, described in the opinion as advocacy organizations, brought this Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) action against the Farm Service Agency, an agency within the Department of Agriculture. Their case challenged the agency’s handling of several FOIA requests, including alleged withholding under FOIA Exemptions 3 and 6 and the adequacy of the search for records responsive to an April 2019 request.

The April 2019 request sought records concerning the Farm Service Agency’s directives and policies for responding to and processing FOIA requests and appeals. After discussions with the plaintiffs, the agency understood that the request also covered internal guidance about handling requests from certain groups, using particular exemptions, and responding to requests concerning the agency’s farm-loan program and related environmental reviews.

At an initial case-management conference, the agency offered to conduct a new search. Its first search had located and produced two emails totaling seven pages concerning guidance about a flood of requests connected to litigation involving corn producers. The later search located 30,204 pages, including agency policies, notices, and a training presentation. The agency initially withheld nearly 9,000 pages under Exemption 5, later released those pages, and continued to withhold redacted information from 153 pages under Exemption 6.

Analysis

The court explained that an agency must conduct a search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents. The issue is whether the search was adequate, not simply whether the agency found or produced a large number of records.

The court identified three problems. First, the agency’s explanation for searching only email subject lines with selected terms focused on avoiding irrelevant material, rather than showing that the method would locate all relevant records. The agency also did not provide evidence of the broader, diligent searching described in a precedent it cited.

Second, the agency ignored clarifying information it had requested from the plaintiffs. The renewed search did not use the plaintiffs’ names, the relevant FOIA exemptions, or terms concerning the farm-loan program, the National Environmental Policy Act, or environmental assessments. The court found it unreasonable for the agency to disregard that information and search only for generally applicable policies.

Third, the agency did not adequately respond when the plaintiffs identified indications that the renewed search had missed materials. In particular, the renewed search did not locate the earlier emails about guidance for handling requests related to the corn-producer litigation, and the agency did not explain why those emails were not found or disclose the methods and terms used in the initial search.

Disposition

The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to the stated extent. It ordered the Farm Service Agency to conduct an adequate search and submit a declaration and Vaughn index—a document explaining the search and justifying any withheld information—by November 5, 2020. The court stated that an adequate search should be reasonably calculated to find internal FOIA guidance applicable to the plaintiffs, environmental reviews connected with the agency’s farm-loan program, and the use of FOIA Exemptions 3 or 6. Judge William Alsup set a further case-management conference for November 19, 2020.