Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University v. Centers for Disease…
Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University v. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
- Analisa Torres
- 1:20-cv-02761
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Knight Institute v. Centers for Disease Control, Judge Torres rejected both sides’ Freedom of Information Act search proposals and ordered further negotiations.
The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services were affected. The order governed the agencies’ search and production of records requested under the Freedom of Information Act.
What happened
Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University v. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention concerns the agencies’ search for records requested under the Freedom of Information Act. The parties disagreed about which employees’ records and which search terms should be used.
The court found the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s proposal inadequate because it did not sufficiently address word variations, broader search methods, former employees’ emails, or additional custodians suggested by the plaintiff. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s proposal because the plaintiff could not require the agency to use particular search terms, and the agency had discretion to design a reasonable search if it explained its choices specifically.
Judge Torres rejected both proposals and ordered the parties to meet again by September 30, 2022, to try to agree on search terms, custodians, and a production schedule. If they could not agree, they had to submit their competing positions jointly within seven days after the meeting.
The detailed version
- Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University v. Centers for Disease… · No. 1:20-cv-02761
- Analisa Torres
- Sept. 9, 2022
Background
The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University sued the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), challenging the agencies’ failure to disclose requested information. The parties cross-moved for summary judgment. In an earlier order, the Court denied the defendants’ motion and granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff’s motion. The Court had determined that the CDC improperly narrowed its search for records responsive to the plaintiff’s first and second requests, which concerned communications policies about the coronavirus and coordination between the CDC and the Coronavirus Task Force led by Vice President Michael Pence.
The Court ordered the CDC to conduct a broader search and directed the parties to meet and confer in good faith about search terms, initial custodians, and a reasonable production schedule. The parties could not agree and submitted competing proposals.
The CDC’s Proposal
The CDC proposed 21 custodians for the first request and 30 custodians for the second request. It also proposed 17 phrases and full names of individuals as search terms. The plaintiff argued that the proposal was too narrow because it did not use common variants or synonyms, relied on exact matches to multi-word phrases, and did not explain how the CDC would seek records from former employees whose emails had not been retained.
The Court rejected the CDC’s proposal. It held that the CDC had not adequately justified its failure to use likely word variants, including variants of “communication” and “COVID.” The CDC also had not sufficiently explained why it would use only specific full names or phrases instead of Boolean connectors or similar search strategies. In addition, the CDC had not explained how it would pursue records associated with former employees or why it rejected additional custodians proposed by the plaintiff.
The Plaintiff’s Proposal
The plaintiff proposed 26 custodians for the first request and four Boolean searches for the subject lines and bodies of those custodians’ emails. For the second request, the plaintiff accepted the CDC’s 30 custodians but proposed five Boolean searches and an additional search for one custodian’s inbox.
The Court also rejected the plaintiff’s proposal. It explained that a FOIA requester generally cannot dictate an agency’s search terms and that an agency has discretion to develop search terms reasonably tailored to find responsive records. The CDC was not required to adopt the plaintiff’s proposal, but it had to give a reasonably specific explanation for rejecting the plaintiff’s proposed terms and search strategies. The Court found the CDC’s general concerns about overbroad searches insufficient.
Ruling and Next Steps
The Court rejected both parties’ proposals. It directed the parties to meet again by September 30, 2022, and make a good-faith effort to agree on search terms, initial custodians, and a reasonable timeline for the CDC’s production. If they could not agree, they were required to file a joint submission stating their respective positions within seven days of the meeting.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.