UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 17-1208 (BAH) v. Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Center for Biological Diversity (“CBD”), a nonprofit “environmental conservation organization that works to protect native wildlife species and their habitats,” Am. Compl. ¶ 1, ECF No. 6, challenges the response of defendant U.S. Department of the Interior (“DOI”) to a six-part request submitted pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, for records regarding an order issued by the Secretary of the Interior concerning the Federal Coal Program (the “FOIA Request”), id. ¶¶ 27, 30–31. Specifically, plaintiff alleges in three claims that DOI failed to conduct an adequate search for responsive records (Count II), id. ¶¶ 49–53; failed to promptly disclose records responsive to plaintiff’s FOIA request (Count III), id. ¶¶ 59–63; and failed to provide reasonably segregable portions of any responsive records exempt from disclosure under FOIA (Count IV), id. ¶¶ 70–75.1 1 In addition to these counts, the Amended Complaint pled that DOI failed to make a determination on plaintiff’s FOIA request (Count I), Am. Compl. ¶¶ 40–43, and, in the alternative, violated the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq., by unlawfully withholding or unreasonably delaying agency actions required by FOIA (Count V), Am. Compl. ¶¶ 82–87, and failing to comply with its FOIA obligations (Count VI), id. ¶¶ 93– 97. The Amended Complaint also pled all six counts against the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”). Id. ¶¶ 36– 39, 44–48, 54–58, 64–69, 76–81, 88–92. The parties presented no argument on any claim except Count II, as alleged against DOI, in their pending cross-motions for summary judgment. Defendants represented in their Motion for Summary Judgment, filed only by DOI, that “[p]laintiff d[id] not seek further searches by BLM nor d[id] [p]laintiff currently have any reason to challenge any redactions or exemption clams by [d]efendants,” Def.’s Mot. Summ. J. (“Def.’s Mot.”) at 1–2, ECF No. 29, and suggested that “the Court should dismiss the claims against BLM 1 Pending before the Court are the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. Def.’s Mot. Summ. J. (“Def.’s Mot.”), ECF No. 29; Pl.’s Mot. Partial Summ. J. (“Pl.’s Mot.”), ECF No. 30. For the reasons set forth below, both parties’ motions are denied. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff’s FOIA Request is briefly described below, followed by review of DOI’s responses to the Request both before and after initiation of this lawsuit. A. The FOIA Request On March 28, 2017, then–President Trump signed Executive Order 13783, which, in relevant part, directed the Secretary of the Interior to “take all steps necessary and appropriate to amend or withdraw Secretary’s Order 3338” and “to lift any and all moratoria on Federal land coal leasing activities related to Order 3338.” Exec. Order No. 13,783, 82 Fed. Reg. 16,093, 16,096 (Mar. 28, 2017). That same day, in response to the Executive Order, plaintiff submitted two FOIA requests, one …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals