UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HERITAGE FOUNDATION, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 23-748 (JEB) U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiffs Heritage Foundation and Mike Howell recently submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to Defendant Environmental Protection Agency, seeking records related to the Norfolk Southern freight-train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio. Plaintiffs also applied for expedited processing of the request, which EPA denied. Dissatisfied with that decision, they filed this lawsuit against EPA and now move for a preliminary injunction. Because Plaintiffs have not carried their burden of showing that such relief is warranted, the Court will deny their Motion. I. Background On February 23, 2023, Heritage and Howell, the Director of Heritage’s Oversight Project and an investigative columnist with Heritage’s publication The Daily Signal, submitted a FOIA request to EPA. See ECF No. 1-6 (FOIA Request) at 1; ECF No. 1 (Compl.), ¶ 3. (The Court will refer to Plaintiffs together as Heritage.) The request sought 20 categories of information related to the derailment, ranging from “All communications with any state or local government employee relating to the Incident” to “All records relating to the Incident and ‘Trump.’” FOIA 1 Request at 1–3. Heritage also requested expedited processing pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E) and EPA regulations. Id. at 7 (citing 40 C.F.R. § 2.104(f)). On February 24, EPA denied the latter request. See ECF No. 1-8 (Denial Letter). It concluded that the requesters had not explained how their listed categories were tailored to urgently needed information about the incident. Id. at 4–5. Plaintiffs responded with this lawsuit on March 20, challenging EPA’s denial of their expedite request. They filed the present Motion for a Preliminary Injunction a week later, on March 27. See ECF No. 4 (Mot. for Preliminary Injunction). After Plaintiffs filed their Motion, the parties conferred by video call; EPA memorialized that call in a March 30 letter. See ECF No. 5-7 (Letter of Mar. 30, 2023). That letter identifies how the agency intends to proceed on each of the 20 questions, including noting that one has been withdrawn and that others will be answered by production of a single document. Id. at 1–6. For the balance, EPA estimates that, due to the need to review “thousands of potentially responsive records, coordinat[e] with several offices within EPA, and consult[] with other agencies,” full document production should conclude on November 1, 2023. Id. at 6. Not content with that timetable, Heritage presses this Motion. II. Legal Standard “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter v. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish [1] that he is likely to succeed on the merits, [2] that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, [3] that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and [4] that an injunction is in the public interest.” Sherley v. Sebelius, 644 F.3d 388, 392 (D.C. Cir. …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals