LatinoJustice PRLDEF v. Department of the Treasury

Background

Plaintiffs LatinoJustice PRLDEF, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and Centro de Periodismo Investigativo brought this Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) action against the Department of the Treasury. Their January 2017 request sought records concerning the selection and appointment of the seven original members of the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico, created under the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act of 2016.

Treasury searched for and produced responsive records, later releasing additional information after reprocessing certain documents. Plaintiffs continued to challenge exemptions applied to parts of 26 records but did not challenge the adequacy of Treasury’s search. The parties filed competing motions for summary judgment, which asks the court to decide a case when there is no genuine dispute over a material fact and one side is entitled to judgment under the law.

FOIA Exemptions and the Court’s Analysis

The court considered Treasury’s use of FOIA Exemptions 5 and 6. Exemption 5 protects certain internal agency communications that would be protected in litigation, including material covered by the deliberative-process privilege. That privilege protects documents created before a government decision and reflecting recommendations, evaluations, or other internal deliberations. Exemption 6 protects certain personal information, but the court did not need to decide whether that exemption applied because the same material was protected under Exemption 5. Plaintiffs also withdrew their challenges concerning some low-level Treasury employees’ names and certain other claimed privileges.

The court held that Treasury’s declaration adequately described each challenged record, including its format, date or date range when available, senders and recipients, the withheld and released material, and the claimed exemptions. The court concluded that Treasury was not required to use a formal index listing each withheld document because its declaration and the attached records gave the court a reasonable basis to evaluate the withholdings.

The court further held that the challenged candidate names, Treasury employees’ assessments, candidate rankings, communications about which candidates might work well together, and selected biographical information were deliberative. Although names and biographical information can sometimes be factual, the court found that their inclusion and organization here reflected Treasury employees’ judgments about which individuals should be considered and which qualifications were important. Because Treasury lacked authority to make the final appointments, its recommendations remained preliminary even where Treasury personnel had made final internal selections or recommendations.

The court also upheld the withholding of proposed timelines and workstream documents because they concerned steps toward making the final appointments, rather than merely implementing an already completed policy. Finally, under the FOIA Improvement Act, the court found that Treasury had adequately shown a reasonably foreseeable harm from disclosure: future Treasury officials and potential candidates might be less candid in internal discussions and vetting interviews, impairing the government’s ability to advise decisionmakers.

Disposition

The court concluded that Treasury’s Exemption 5 withholdings were proper. Judge J. Paul Oetken granted Treasury’s motion for summary judgment and denied Plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary judgment. The clerk was directed to close both motions and the case.