March 9, 2017
VIA FACSIMILE

NLRB FOIA Officer
National Labor Relations Board
1015 Half Street, S.E., 4th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20570
Fax number: (202) 273-FOIA (3642)
Re: Expedited Freedom of Information Act Request

Dear Freedom of Information Act Officer:
Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq., and the National
Labor Relations Board’s implementing regulations, 29 C.F.R. § 102.117, American Oversight
makes the following request for records.
American Oversight promotes accountability in government through transparency, enforcing the
public’s right to know what the government is up to. With scores of new individuals joining the
government in key, senior positions, it is essential to understand who they are and the backgrounds
they bring to their work. Without such transparency, the public cannot have confidence that
government decisions are shaped by the interests of the American people, not personal or
professional allegiances. To that end, American Oversight is seeking information regarding R.
Alexander Acosta, President Donald Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Labor. To better
understand who Mr. Acosta is and what skills and perspectives he would bring to the Department
of Labor, American Oversight seeks records from his prior service in the executive branch.
1

Requested Records

American Oversight requests that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) produce within
twenty business days copies of: personnel records, performance reviews, hiring analyses,
correspondence, and salary and benefits information regarding Mr. Acosta. This should include,
but is not limited to:
1. Internal analysis about Mr. Acosta concerning his nomination and appointment to the
NLRB.

Alan Rappaport, R. Alexander Acosta, Law School Dean, Is Trump’s New Pick for Labor, N.Y.
TIMES, Feb. 16, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/us/politics/alexander-acosta-laborsecretary-trump.html.
1

American Oversight   1030 15th Street, NW, Suite B255   Washington, DC 20005

 2. Any correspondence concerning the nomination and potential appointment of Mr. Acosta
from within the NLRB or from the public.
3. Minutes and corresponding documents for any meetings held at the NLRB concerning the
nomination and potential appointment of Mr. Acosta.
4. Complaints regarding Mr. Acosta received from within the NLRB or from the public.
5. Any records or information regarding Mr. Acosta’s salary, benefits or other compensation
while a member of the NLRB.
6. Mr. Acosta's correspondence, which includes all communications sent or received by Mr.
Acosta, or communication in which he was merely carbon copied (“CC’d”), from within
the NLRB, from within a state or federal government or from the public.
7. Mr. Acosta's work product, including: memos authored or and any other written or
electronic materials created by Mr. Acosta during his time with the NLRB.
Please provide all responsive records from January 1, 2002, through December 31, 2003. For
reference, Mr. Acosta served as a member of the NLRB from December 17, 2002, to August 21,
2003.
In addition to the records requested above, American Oversight also requests records describing
the processing of this request, including records sufficient to identify search terms used and
locations and custodians searched and any tracking sheets used to track the processing of this
request. If your agency uses FOIA questionnaires or certifications completed by individual
custodians or components to determine whether they possess responsive materials or to describe
how they conducted searches, we also request any such records prepared in connection with the
processing of this request.
In conducting your search, please note that Mr. Acosta has used different names professionally,
and a search should include variations of his name including Rene Alexander Acosta, Rene
Acosta, Alexander Acosta, and Alex Acosta.
American Oversight seeks all responsive records regardless of format, medium, or physical
characteristics. In conducting your search, please understand the terms “record,” “document,” and
“information” in their broadest sense, to include any written, typed, recorded, graphic, printed, or
audio material of any kind. We seek records of any kind, including electronic records, audiotapes,
videotapes, and photographs, as well as letters, emails, facsimiles, telephone messages, voice mail
messages and transcripts, notes, or minutes of any meetings, telephone conversations or
discussions. Our request includes any attachments to these records. No category of material should
be omitted from search, collection, and production.
Please search all records regarding agency business. You may not exclude searches of files or
emails in the personal custody of your officials, such as personal email accounts. Records of official
business conducted using unofficial systems or stored outside of official files is subject to the

2

 2

Federal Records Act and FOIA. It is not adequate to rely on policies and procedures that require
officials to move such information to official systems within a certain period of time; American
Oversight has a right to records contained in those files even if the material has not yet been
moved to official systems or if officials have, through negligence or willfulness, failed to meet their
obligations.
3

In addition, please note that in conducting a “reasonable search” as required by law, you must
employ the most up-to-date technologies and tools available, in addition to searches by individual
custodians likely to have responsive information. Recent technology may have rendered the
NLRB’s prior FOIA practices unreasonable. In light of the government-wide requirements to
manage information electronically by the end of 2016, it is no longer reasonable to rely exclusively
on custodian-driven searches. Furthermore, agencies that have adopted the National Archives and
Records Agency (NARA) Capstone program, or similar policies, now maintain emails in a form
that is reasonably likely to be more complete than individual custodians’ files. For example, a
custodian may have deleted a responsive email from his or her email program, but the archiving
tools of the NLRB would capture that email under Capstone. Accordingly, American Oversight
insists that the NLRB use the most up-to-date technologies to search for responsive information
and take steps to ensure that the most complete repositories of information are searched.
American Oversight is available to work with the NLRB to craft appropriate search terms.
However, custodian searches are still required; agencies may not have direct access to files stored
in .PST files, outside of network drives, in paper format, or in personal email accounts.
4

Under the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016, agencies must adopt a presumption of disclosure,
withholding information “only if . . . disclosure would harm an interest protected by an exemption”
or “disclosure is prohibited by law.” If it is your position that any portion of the requested records
is exempt from disclosure, American Oversight requests that you provide an index of those
documents as required under Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415
5

See Competitive Enter. Inst. v. Office of Sci. & Tech. Policy, 827 F.3d 145, 149–50 (D.C. Cir.
2016); cf. Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Kerry, 844 F.3d 952, 955–56 (D.C. Cir. 2016).
See Competitive Enter. Inst. v. Office of Sci. & Tech. Policy, No. 14-cv-765, slip op. at 8 (D.D.C.
Dec. 12, 2016) (“The Government argues that because the agency had a policy requiring [the
official] to forward all of his emails from his [personal] account to his business email, the
[personal] account only contains duplicate agency records at best. Therefore, the Government
claims that any hypothetical deletion of the [personal account] emails would still leave a copy of
those records intact in [the official’s] work email. However, policies are rarely followed to
perfection by anyone. At this stage of the case, the Court cannot assume that each and every work
related email in the [personal] account was duplicated in [the official’s] work email account.”
(citations omitted)).
Presidential Memorandum—Managing Government Records, 76 Fed. Reg. 75,423 (Nov. 28,
2011), available at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2011/11/28/presidentialmemorandum-managing-government-records; Office of Mgmt. & Budget, Exec. Office of the
President, Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments & Agencies & Independent
Agencies, “Managing Government Records Directive,” M-12-18 (Aug. 24, 2012), available at
https://www.archives.gov/files/records-mgmt/m-12-18.pdf.
FOIA Improvement Act of 2016 § 2 (Pub. L. No. 114–185).
2

3

4

5

3

 U.S. 977 (1974). As you are aware, a Vaughn index must describe each document claimed as
exempt with sufficient specificity “to permit a reasoned judgment as to whether the material is
actually exempt under FOIA.” Moreover, the Vaughn index “must describe each document or
portion thereof withheld, and for each withholding it must discuss the consequences of disclosing
the sought-after information.” Further, “the withholding agency must supply ‘a relatively detailed
justification, specifically identifying the reasons why a particular exemption is relevant and
correlating those claims with the particular part of a withheld document to which they apply.’”
6

7

8

In the event some portions of the requested records are properly exempt from disclosure, please
disclose any reasonably segregable non-exempt portions of the requested records. If it is your
position that a document contains non-exempt segments, but that those non-exempt segments are
so dispersed throughout the document as to make segregation impossible, please state what
portion of the document is non-exempt, and how the material is dispersed throughout the
document. Claims of nonsegregability must be made with the same degree of detail as required for
claims of exemptions in a Vaughn index. If a request is denied in whole, please state specifically
that it is not reasonable to segregate portions of the record for release.
9

You should institute a preservation hold on information responsive to this request. American
Oversight intends to pursue all legal avenues to enforce its right of access under FOIA, including
litigation if necessary. Accordingly, the NLRB is on notice that litigation is reasonably foreseeable.

To ensure that this request is properly construed, that searches are conducted in an adequate but
efficient manner, and that extraneous costs are not incurred, American Oversight welcomes an
opportunity to discuss its request with the NLRB before you undertake your search or incur search
or duplication costs. By working together at the outset, American Oversight and the NLRB can
decrease the likelihood of costly and time-consuming litigation in the future.
Where possible, please provide responsive material in electronic format by email or in PDF or
TIF format on a USB drive. Please send any responsive material being sent by mail to American
Oversight, 1030 15 Street, NW, Suite B255, Washington, DC 20005. If it will accelerate release
of responsive records to American Oversight, please also provide responsive material on a rolling
basis.
th

Fee Waiver Request

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii) and 29 C.F.R. § 102.117(d)(2)(iv), American
Oversight requests a waiver of fees associated with processing this request for records. The subject
of this request concerns the operations of the federal government, and the disclosures will likely
contribute to a better understanding of relevant government procedures by the general public in a

Founding Church of Scientology v. Bell, 603 F.2d 945, 949 (D.C. Cir. 1979).
King v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 830 F.2d 210, 223—24 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (emphasis in original).
Id. at 224 (citing Mead Data Central, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of the Air Force, 566 F.2d 242, 251 (D.C.
Cir. 1977)).
Mead Data Central, 566 F.2d at 261.
6
7
8

9

4

 significant way. Moreover, the request is primarily and fundamentally for non-commercial
purposes. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii).
10

American Oversight requests a waiver of fees because disclosure of the requested information is
“in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding” of
government operations and is not “primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.” The
disclosure of the information sought under this request will document and reveal the operations of
the federal government, including how public funds are spent and how officials conduct the
public’s business.
11

To date, the Trump administration has not evidenced that it takes seriously the vetting of political
appointees. Most recently, Andrew Puzder, the prior nominee to lead the U.S. Department of
Labor, withdrew himself from consideration after questions were raised about his background
months after he was first put forth. Mr. Acosta’s nomination came just one day after Mr. Puzder’s
withdrawal, raising questions about the scope of Mr. Acosta’s vetting.
12

This request is primarily and fundamentally for non-commercial purposes. As a 501(c)(3)
nonprofit, American Oversight does not have a commercial purpose and the release of the
information requested is not in American Oversight’s financial interest. American Oversight’s
mission is to promote transparency in government, to educate the public about government
activities, and to ensure the accountability of government officials. American Oversight will use the
information gathered, and its analysis of it, to educate the public through reports, press releases, or
other media. American Oversight will also make materials it gathers available on our public
website.
Accordingly, American Oversight qualifies for a fee waiver.
Application for Expedited Processing

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(1) and 29 C.F.R. § 102.117(c)(2)(ii), American Oversight
requests that the NLRB expedite the processing of this request.
I certify to be true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, that there is widespread and
exceptional media interest and there exist possible questions concerning the government’s
integrity, which affect public confidence. As discussed above, to date the Trump administration has
not evidenced thorough vetting of its nominees.
Mere days after Scott Pruitt was confirmed as Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, emails surfaced from his time as Oklahoma Attorney General reflecting close ties and

See, e.g., McClellan Ecological Seepage Situation v. Carlucci, 835 F.2d 1282, 1285 (9th Cir.
1987).
5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii); 28 C.F.R. §16.10(k).
Alan Rappeport, Andrew Puzder Withdraws From Consideration as Labor Secretary, N.Y.
TIMES, Feb. 15, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/15/us/politics/andrew-puzder-withdrewlabor-secretary.html.
10

11
12

5

 13

coordination with the corporate entities he is now charged with overseeing. The media has
already demonstrated significant interest in Mr. Acosta’s nomination. Disclosure and analysis of
Mr. Acosta’s records prior to his committee hearing is necessary to avoid another confirmation as
premature as that of Mr. Pruitt.
14

The requested documents will shed light on these issues of considerable interest to the public. The
availability of Mr. Acosta’s record from his time in public service while the U.S. Senate considers
his nomination for Secretary of Labor is a quintessential example of “a matter of widespread and
exceptional media interest in which there exist possible questions about the government’s integrity
which affect public confidence.” 29 C.F.R. § 102.117(c)(2)(ii).
Accordingly, American Oversight submits that its request satisfies the criteria for expedition.
Conclusion

We share a common mission to promote transparency in government. American Oversight looks
forward to working with the NLRB on this request. If you do not understand any part of this
request, have any questions, or foresee any problems in fully releasing the requested records,
please contact us at foia@americanoveright.org. Also, if American Oversight’s request for a fee
waiver is not granted in full, please contact us immediately upon making such a determination.
Sincerely,
Austin R. Evers
Executive Director
American Oversight

Coral Davenport and Eric Lipton, The Pruitt Emails: E.P.A. Chief Was Arm in Arm With
Industry, N.Y. TIMES, Feb. 22, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/us/politics/scott-pruittenvironmental-protection-agency.html.
Josh Dawsey and Eli Stokols, Trump’s ‘Apprentice’-style Hiring Is Upending Washington,
POLITICO (Feb. 22, 2017, 06:43 PM), http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/donald-trumpapprentice-hiring-235281 (“Acosta was picked shortly after Puzder officially dropped out and
wasn't at the 77-minute news conference where his nomination was announced. Trump didn't
travel to Florida, where Acosta lives, to interview him. Acosta referred a request for comment to
the White House.”); John King, Manu Raju, and Dan Merica, Trump Names First Hispanic
Cabinet Pick, CNN (Feb. 16, 2017, 6:55 PM), http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/16/politics/donaldtrump-white-house-announcement/, Barry Meier, Labor Nominee’s Role in Sex Case Could Draw
Scrutiny, N.Y. TIMES, Feb. 17, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/17/business/alexanderacosta-jeffrey-epstein-case.html; Yuki Noguchi, Trump Chooses R. Alexander Acosta As New
Labor Nominee, NPR (Feb. 16, 2017, 4:31 PM),
http://www.npr.org/2017/02/16/515638102/trump-chooses-r-alexander-acosta-as-new-labornominee.
13

14

6