UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON, Plaintiff Civil Action No. 18-2071 (CKK) v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Defendant MEMORANDUM OPINION (March 29, 2021) This lawsuit arises from a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request made by Plaintiff Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (“CREW”) to Defendant General Services Administration (“GSA”). CREW requested communications from January 20, 2017 to July 30, 2018 between GSA and the White House concerning the renovation of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) headquarters in Washington, D.C. Currently before the Court are Defendant GSA’s [45] Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff CREW’s [46] Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. Upon consideration of the pleadings, 1 the relevant legal authorities, and the record as whole, for the reasons stated below, the Court finds that GSA has satisfied its burden to demonstrate that it properly withheld records in 1 The Court’s consideration has focused on the following documents: • Defendant’s Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment (“GSA’s Mot.”), ECF No. 45; • Plaintiff’s Third Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Defendant’s Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment (“CREW’s Mot. & Opp’n”), ECF No. 46; • Defendant’s Reply in Support of its Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiff’s Third Motion for Summary Judgment (“GSA’s Reply & Opp’n”), ECF No. 49; and • Reply in Support of Plaintiff’s Third Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (“CREW’s Reply”), ECF No. 50. 1 Categories 2, 3, and 4 pursuant to FOIA Exemption 5, and so shall GRANT-IN-PART GSA’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to the those three categories. The Court further finds that GSA has not demonstrated that the document in Category 1 properly falls within FOIA Exemption 5, and so shall GRANT-IN-PART CREW’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment as to that category. Finally, the Court concludes that GSA has failed to meet its burden to demonstrate that all reasonably segregable information in Category 6 has been disclosed to CREW, and so shall HOLD IN ABEYANCE the parties’ cross-motions with respect to that category before ordering the release of certain documents, to allow GSA to re-examine those documents to determine whether they should be released. I. BACKGROUND In 2012, GSA announced its plan to find a new facility to serve as the FBI’s headquarters. CREW’s Mot. & Opp’n Ex. 1 at 3, ECF No. 46-3. GSA began reviewing potential locations and developers, and identified potential sites for a new building in Maryland and Virginia. Id. GSA continued reviewing developer proposals through early 2017. Id. at 3–4. In July 2017, GSA cancelled its efforts to secure a new headquarters facility, and instead directed its efforts to renovating the FBI’s existing facility, the J. Edgar Hoover Building, located on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C. Id. at 4–5. Citing public news reports, CREW suggests in its Complaint that this sudden change in course was attributable to President Donald J. Trump’s interest in the FBI Headquarters Project. Compl. ¶ 11, ECF No. 1. On July 30, 2018, CREW submitted …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals