Dorsey & Whitney LLP v. United States Postal Service
- Wilhelmina Wright
- 0:18-cv-02493
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
Dorsey & Whitney v. Postal Service: Judge Thorson denied the request for a document index or private review because it was premature.
Dorsey & Whitney LLP’s request for a Vaughn index or in camera review was denied without prejudice; the order left the USPS’s Glomar response unresolved.
What happened
Dorsey & Whitney LLP asked the United States Postal Service for negotiated service agreements and information about how the agency awards them. The Postal Service responded that it could neither confirm nor deny whether the requested records existed.
The firm asked the court to require a list explaining any withheld documents or to privately review those documents. The court denied that motion without prejudice because it first needed to decide whether the Postal Service’s response was legally justified; at that stage, there might be no records to list or review.
Judge Thorson explained that deciding the Postal Service’s response could resolve the main claims and might fall outside a magistrate judge’s authority. The order set a status conference and anticipated further proceedings on that response.
The detailed version
- Dorsey & Whitney LLP v. United States Postal Service · No. 0:18-cv-02493
- Wilhelmina Wright
- Dec. 21, 2018
Background
Dorsey & Whitney LLP submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the United States Postal Service (USPS) for negotiated service agreements with three entities and information about the criteria the USPS used to award those agreements, including internal guidance, handbooks, and checklists.
The USPS issued a “Glomar” response, meaning that it would neither confirm nor deny whether the requested records existed. The USPS relied on FOIA Exemption 3 and 39 U.S.C. § 410(c)(2), taking the position that the statute protects certain commercial information from disclosure. Dorsey & Whitney appealed the response to the USPS, which affirmed it. Dorsey & Whitney then filed this lawsuit.
Motion for a Vaughn Index or In Camera Review
Dorsey & Whitney moved for a Vaughn index or an in camera review. A Vaughn index is a list of responsive documents that explains why the agency withheld all or part of each document. An in camera review is a private examination of documents by the court.
The court held that neither procedure was available at this stage. Because the USPS had asserted a Glomar response, the existence of the underlying records remained unresolved. If the USPS had not searched for or identified records because of that response, there might be no documents to list in a Vaughn index or to examine privately. The court therefore concluded that it first had to determine whether the USPS’s Glomar response should be upheld.
Ruling and Further Proceedings
The court denied without prejudice Dorsey & Whitney’s Motion for Vaughn Index, or for In Camera Review, as premature. The order did not decide whether the USPS’s Glomar response was justified.
The court also noted that deciding the Glomar issue could resolve the substantive claims in the lawsuit and might fall outside the authority of the magistrate judge assigned to the motion. The scheduling order indicated that the USPS had already provided Dorsey & Whitney with draft declarations supporting summary judgment. The court scheduled a status conference for January 3, 2019, and stated that an amended scheduling order would issue separately.
Classification Basis
This is a procedural order because it ruled on a request for a FOIA-related document index or private document review without deciding the underlying legality of the USPS’s Glomar response.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.