Case 4:18-cv-03799 Document 1 Filed 06/26/18 Page 1 of 15

1
2
3
4
5
6

YUTING CHI, CA Bar No. 310177
Earthjustice
633 17th Street, Suite 1600
Denver, CO 80202
ychi@earthjustice.org
Tel: (303) 996-9623
Fax: (303) 623-8083
Counsel for Plaintiffs Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth
(Additional Counsel Listed on Signature Page)

7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OAKLAND DIVISION

9
10
11
12

SIERRA CLUB; and FRIENDS OF THE
EARTH,
Plaintiffs,

13
14
15
16
17

v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR; and UNITED STATES BUREAU
OF LAND MANAGEMENT,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 18-cv-3799

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
(FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT)

18
19
20

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
1.

Plaintiffs bring this case to remedy violations of the Freedom of Information Act

21

(“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, by the United States Department of the Interior and United States

22

Bureau of Land Management (collectively “Agency Defendants,” unless identified individually).

23

The violations arise out of Agency Defendants’ failure to respond to FOIA requests that

24

Plaintiffs submitted for records regarding policies or guidelines governing Agency Defendants’

25

handling of FOIA requests that were created, stored, or received under the current

26

Administration—since January 20, 2017.

27
28
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Sierra Club, et al. v. U.S. Department of the Interior, et al. (Case No. 18-cv-3799)

1

 Case 4:18-cv-03799 Document 1 Filed 06/26/18 Page 2 of 15

2.

1

Agency Defendants’ handling of FOIA requests is a topic of great public interest

2

and importance. Under the current Administration, the Department of the Interior (“Interior”)

3

and the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) have delayed responding to FOIA requests from

4

public interest groups such as Plaintiffs seeking information from agencies. Such delay is

5

particularly evident in the context of Agency Defendants’ review, and in some cases revocation,

6

of America’s national monuments, during which Plaintiffs—along with at least forty other public

7

interest organizations and members of the media—sent numerous FOIA requests to Interior and

8

BLM for information related to national monuments, but received no responses for many

9

months.
3.

10

On information and belief, Interior has instituted new FOIA policies contributing

11

to such delay. These policies may require various Interior bureaus, including BLM, to forward

12

to the Interior Secretary Zinke’s office—a political office—all records responding to FOIA

13

requests on controversial topics like national monuments, rather than to send them directly to the

14

public interest groups making the requests.
4.

15

On information and belief, the Secretary’s office then reviews these records and

16

redacts additional information before making the records available to the public.1 Such review,

17

by the political office of an agency, both delays public interest groups’ access to information and

18

raises concerns that political appointees are inappropriately influencing Interior’s decisions about

19

how much and what kind of information to make available to the public in response to FOIA

20

requests.

21

5.

On information and belief, since the start of the new Administration, BLM has

22

been directing agency FOIA responses to BLM leadership so that the leadership has opportunity

23

to review FOIA responses regarding their own actions before the responses are made public.

24
25
26
27
28

1

See Dino Grandoni & Juliet Eiperin, “Trump environmental officials are keeping tight rein over
stampede of FOIA requests,” WASHINGTON POST (Dec. 15, 2017), https://www.washingtonpost
.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/12/15/trump-environmental-officials-are-keeping-tight-reinover-stampede-of-foia-requests/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.476a99ace675.
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Sierra Club, et al. v. U.S. Department of the Interior, et al. (Case No. 18-cv-3799)

2

 Case 4:18-cv-03799 Document 1 Filed 06/26/18 Page 3 of 15

1

6.

On information and belief, BLM has directed that its staff cease sharing draft

2

documents over email and has disallowed hard copies of documents used at meetings to be taken

3

out of meetings—to prevent the public from gaining access to these drafts and hard copies

4

through the FOIA process.

5

7.

Plaintiffs Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth are both national public interest

6

environmental organizations that rely on FOIA to obtain access to important information about

7

government activities that they regularly disseminate to the public. Such information includes

8

records about the transparency and internal practices of government agencies, such as Agency

9

Defendants, that are charged with protecting public lands, human health, and environmental

10
11

quality.
8.

Plaintiffs submitted their FOIA requests, attached as Exhibits A (to Interior) and

12

B (to BLM), on April 2, 2018, seeking records in five discrete categories that are detailed in the

13

requests. For each category of records requested, Plaintiffs identify by title the specific staff at

14

Interior and BLM who are likely custodians of the records sought.

15

9.

To date, the Agency Defendants have not provided determinations on Plaintiffs’

16

FOIA requests, have not released any records in response to either request, and have not

17

provided any date by which they will do so. As a result, Agency Defendants have violated

18

FOIA’s mandate that agencies must, absent unusual or exceptional circumstances, make a

19

determination on a request within twenty working days and promptly release those records. See

20

5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A), (a)(6)(A)-(C).

21
22
23
24
25
26

JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
10.

This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B)

(FOIA) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question).
11.

Venue is properly vested in this Court under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B), because

Plaintiff Sierra Club has its principal place of business in Oakland, California.

27

12.

For the same reason, intradistrict assignment is proper in the Oakland Division.

28

See Civil L.R. 3-2.
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Sierra Club, et al. v. U.S. Department of the Interior, et al. (Case No. 18-cv-3799)

3

 Case 4:18-cv-03799 Document 1 Filed 06/26/18 Page 4 of 15

1

13.

Declaratory relief is available under 28 U.S.C. § 2201.

2

14.

Injunctive relief is available under 28 U.S.C. § 2202 and 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B).

3

15.

This Court has the authority to award reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees under

4

5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E).

5
6
7

PARTIES
16.

Plaintiff SIERRA CLUB was founded in 1892 and is the nation’s oldest

8

grassroots environmental organization. Sierra Club’s headquarters is located in Oakland,

9

California. Sierra Club is a national nonprofit membership organization incorporated in

10

California with more than 802,000 members in all fifty states and the District of Columbia.

11

Sierra Club’s purpose is to explore, enjoy, and protect the wild places of the earth; to practice

12

and promote the responsible use of the earth’s ecosystems and resources; and to educate and

13

enlist humanity to protect and restore the quality of natural and human environments.

14

17.

Sierra Club draws on its institutional expertise to educate and mobilize the public

15

on environmental and natural resources issues, as well as the operations of the federal

16

government related to such issues. Sierra Club routinely uses FOIA to obtain information from

17

federal agencies, including Agency Defendants, which Sierra Club’s legal and policy experts

18

analyze to inform Sierra Club’s members and the public about environmental and natural

19

resources issues. Sierra Club regularly conveys important information to its members and the

20

public through publications and press releases, and by publicly releasing information and

21

documents obtained through the FOIA process. As such, Sierra Club is a “representative of the

22

news media” as defined under FOIA and Interior regulations. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(ii); 43

23

C.F.R. § 2.70.

24

18.

Plaintiff FRIENDS OF THE EARTH is a national nonprofit organization founded

25

in 1969 and headquartered in Washington, D.C., with a membership of approximately 381,000.

26

Friends of the Earth U.S. is the U.S. voice of the world’s largest network of environmental

27

groups—Friends of the Earth International—a federation of grassroots groups working in

28

seventy-four countries on today’s most urgent environmental and social issues. For more than
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Sierra Club, et al. v. U.S. Department of the Interior, et al. (Case No. 18-cv-3799)

4

 Case 4:18-cv-03799 Document 1 Filed 06/26/18 Page 5 of 15

1

forty years, Friends of the Earth has championed a clean and sustainable environment, the

2

protection of America’s public lands, and the exposure of government malfeasance and corporate

3

greed.

4

19.

Friends of the Earth is primarily engaged in information dissemination, public

5

education, and advocacy on environmental issues, and routinely uses FOIA to do so. The

6

organization has a demonstrated and longstanding capacity to disseminate important government

7

information acquired from the FOIA process through direct communication to journalists and

8

other members of the media, press releases, newsletters, email alerts to members and supporters,

9

its website and social media accounts, public meetings, and other legislative and executive fora.

10

As such, Friends of the Earth is a “representative of the news media” as defined under FOIA and

11

Interior regulations. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(ii); 43 C.F.R. § 2.70.

12

20.

Defendant U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR is a federal agency within

13

the meaning of FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(f)(1). It is a cabinet-level agency of the executive branch

14

of the U.S. government, responsible for protecting and managing much of this country’s wildlife,

15

natural resources, public lands, and cultural heritage. Interior has nine bureaus, including BLM.

16

Plaintiffs submitted the first of the two FOIA requests underlying this Complaint to Interior’s

17

Office of the Secretary. Interior is in possession and control of records that Plaintiffs seek, and

18

therefore it is subject to FOIA pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(f). Interior is a federal agency

19

responsible for applying and implementing the federal laws and regulations at issue in this

20

Complaint.

21

21.

Defendant U.S. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT is a federal agency

22

within the meaning of FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(f)(1). It is an agency of the executive branch of the

23

U.S. government, under Interior. Plaintiffs submitted the second of the two FOIA requests

24

underlying this Complaint to BLM’s FOIA office. BLM is in possession and control of records

25

that Plaintiffs seek, and therefore it is subject to FOIA pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(f). BLM is a

26

federal agency responsible for applying and implementing the federal laws and regulations at

27

issue in this Complaint.

28
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Sierra Club, et al. v. U.S. Department of the Interior, et al. (Case No. 18-cv-3799)

5

 Case 4:18-cv-03799 Document 1 Filed 06/26/18 Page 6 of 15

1
2

LEGAL BACKGROUND
22.

Congress enacted the Freedom of Information Act to protect the American

3

people’s “right to be informed about what their government is up to.” U.S. Dep’t of Justice v.

4

Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749, 773 (1989) (internal quotations

5

omitted). FOIA’s basic purpose is “to ensure an informed citizenry, vital to the functioning of a

6

democratic society, needed to check against corruption and to hold the governors accountable to

7

the governed.” Nat’l Labor Relations Bd. v. Robbins Tires & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 242

8

(1978). To this end, FOIA allows access to government information “long shielded

9

unnecessarily from public view” and vindicates the public’s right to “secure such information

10

from possibly unwilling official hands.” Envtl. Prot. Agency v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73, 80 (1973).

11

23.

FOIA imposes strict deadlines on federal agencies once they receive a request for

12

records. Specifically, within twenty working days of receiving a FOIA request, an agency must

13

determine whether to disclose responsive records and must immediately notify the requester of

14

its determination and the reasons therefore. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i).

15

24.

The Northern District has held that such agency determinations must indicate the

16

scope of the documents that the agency will produce and the exemptions it will claim with

17

respect to any withheld documents. Our Children’s Earth Found. v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries

18

Serv., 85 F. Supp. 3d 1074, 1089 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (citing Citzens for Responsibility & Ethics in

19

Wash. v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 711 F.3d 180, 184 (D.C. Cir. 2013)). An adverse determination

20

must inform the requester of its right to appeal the agency’s determination. See id.

21

25.

An agency may extend this twenty-day period only in “unusual circumstances” as

22

defined by 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(B)(iii), and only for a maximum of ten working days. 5 U.S.C.

23

§ 552(a)(6)(B)(i); 43 C.F.R. § 2.16(a).

24
25
26

26.

The agency must also provide “an estimated date on which the agency will

complete action on the request.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(7)(B)(ii).
27.

The agency must then make the requested records “promptly” available, id.

27

§ 552(a)(3)(A), (a)(6)(C)(i), unless it can establish that it may lawfully withhold records, or

28

portions of records, from disclosure under narrowly-defined FOIA exemptions listed in § 552(b).
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Sierra Club, et al. v. U.S. Department of the Interior, et al. (Case No. 18-cv-3799)

6

 Case 4:18-cv-03799 Document 1 Filed 06/26/18 Page 7 of 15

1

In doing so, it must make reasonable efforts to search for records in a manner that is reasonably

2

calculated to locate all records responsive to the FOIA request. Id. § 552(a)(3)(C)-(D).

3

28.

If an agency withholds responsive records, in whole or in part, the burden is on

4

the agency to prove that an exemption applies and that this interest outweighs FOIA’s policy of

5

disclosure. See, e.g., id. § 552(a)(4)(B); U.S. Dep’t of State v. Ray, 502 U.S. 164, 173 (1991).

6

29.

Whenever an agency determines that a portion of a record should be withheld

7

under one of FOIA’s exemptions, the agency must still release to the public any portions of that

8

record that contain “reasonably segregable” non-exempt information. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b).

9

30.

Interior FOIA regulations provide for a tracked response process that

10

distinguishes requests based on the estimated number of workdays needed to respond. 43 C.F.R.

11

§ 2.15(a). “Simple” requests take one to five workdays to process; “normal” requests take six to

12

twenty workdays; “complex” requests take between twenty-one and sixty workdays; and

13

“exceptional/voluminous” requests, which involve “very complex processing challenges” and

14

potentially include a large number of responsive records, take over sixty workdays to process.

15

Id. § 2.15(c)(1)-(4).

16

31.

The multi-track processing system does not alter FOIA’s statutory deadline for an

17

agency to determine whether to comply with the FOIA request. Id. § 2.15(f). An agency must

18

make a determination whether to comply with the request and notify the requester accordingly,

19

within the mandatory deadlines described above.

20

32.

If the agency fails to make a determination within the statutory time period, the

21

requestor may immediately commence litigation in district court to compel an adequate response

22

from the agency and is deemed to have exhausted its administrative remedies. 5 U.S.C.

23

§ 552(a)(4)(B), (a)(6)(C)(i).

24

33.

The United States district courts have jurisdiction “to enjoin the agency from

25

withholding agency records and to order the production of any agency records improperly

26

withheld from the complainant.” Id. § 552(a)(4)(B).

27
28

34.

FOIA and Interior’s regulations state that a requester is entitled to a waiver of fees

associated with responding to a FOIA request when the information sought “is likely to
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Sierra Club, et al. v. U.S. Department of the Interior, et al. (Case No. 18-cv-3799)

7

 Case 4:18-cv-03799 Document 1 Filed 06/26/18 Page 8 of 15

1

contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government

2

and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.” Id. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii); 43

3

C.F.R. § 2.48(a). Further, an agency cannot assess fees against a requester who is a

4

representative of the news media if the agency does not respond to the request within the time

5

established by FOIA. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(viii).

6
7
8
9
10
11

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
35.

Plaintiffs submitted two outstanding FOIA requests to which Agency Defendants

have failed to respond.
FOIA Request to Interior
36.

On April 2, 2018, Plaintiffs submitted a FOIA request to Interior seeking records

12

regarding policies or guidelines governing Interior’s handling, processing, and disposition of

13

FOIA requests created, stored, or received since January 20, 2017 (“April 2 Interior Request”).

14

See Ex. A, attached. The April 2 Interior Request identified five specific categories of records

15

that Plaintiffs requested and provided a detailed description of the records sought for each

16

category. Id. Both Plaintiffs established their status as “representatives of the news media” in

17

this request. Id. at 11-13.

18

37.

Having received no acknowledgement from Interior regarding the request,

19

Plaintiffs called Interior on April 11. An Interior FOIA officer, Nicholas Banco, stated that the

20

FOIA request was in the queue, ready to be processed, and assigned control number OS-2018-

21

00959. But Mr. Banco was unable to provide any further information.

22

38.

On April 12 and 13, Plaintiffs contacted Interior to inquire about the status of the

23

acknowledgment letter. On April 13, Interior FOIA officer Clarice Julka issued a letter to

24

Plaintiffs stating that Interior would need ten additional working days to process the request,

25

because Interior “need[ed] to consult with one or more bureaus in the Department to properly

26

process [Plaintiffs’] request.” Ex. C at 3, attached. Although Interior had not yet assessed the

27

universe of responsive records, the letter stated that Interior had placed the request in the

28

“Complex” processing track. Id. The acknowledgement letter did not provide a determination
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Sierra Club, et al. v. U.S. Department of the Interior, et al. (Case No. 18-cv-3799)

8

 Case 4:18-cv-03799 Document 1 Filed 06/26/18 Page 9 of 15

1

on the scope of the documents the Interior would produce, nor did it indicate any planned

2

withholdings or exemptions. See generally id.
39.

3

The due date for Interior’s FOIA determination on the April 2 Interior Request,

4

inclusive of its ten-day extension, was May 11, 2018. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A), (a)(6)(B)(i);

5

43 C.F.R. § 2.16(a).
40.

6

On May 29, 2018, Plaintiffs contacted Interior’s FOIA office, notifying the

7

agency that Interior’s thirty working-day determination on Plaintiffs’ April 2, 2018 FOIA request

8

was overdue and requesting a determination and response to the FOIA request. The FOIA

9

officer responded that Interior’s FOIA office could not provide the determination or a timeline

10

for releasing the records.
41.

11

On the same day, Interior’s FOIA officer, Clarice Julka, contacted Plaintiffs. Ms.

12

Julka indicated to Plaintiffs that the Interior FOIA office will search only for records generated

13

or received by the Interior Secretary’s office and the Interior’s FOIA Policy Office and not by

14

other Interior bureaus, such as the Solicitor’s office. Ms. Julka also stated that Plaintiffs’ request

15

was too broad, and asked for clarifications. Finally, Ms. Julka indicated that Interior had

16

recently published a two-page FOIA policy.2

17

42.

On June 11, 2018, Plaintiffs’ counsel contacted Ms. Julka with clarifications on

18

the April 2 Interior Request, which Ms. Julka accepted. Plaintiffs’ counsel informed Ms. Julka

19

that Plaintiffs were looking for records other than the two-page FOIA policy published by

20

Interior regarding Interior’s handling of FOIA requests that were created, stored, or received

21

under the current Administration.

22

43.

On June 12, 2018, Ms. Julka informed Plaintiffs’ counsel over telephone that

23

Plaintiffs’ FOIA request would remain in the “complex” track, and that she could not provide a

24

determination date or a timeline for the release of records.

25
26
2

27
28

U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, Office of the Secretary, May 24, 2018 Memorandum on Awareness
Process for Freedom of Information Act Productions, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/
uploads/awareness_process_memo_final.pdf.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Sierra Club, et al. v. U.S. Department of the Interior, et al. (Case No. 18-cv-3799)

9

 Case 4:18-cv-03799 Document 1 Filed 06/26/18 Page 10 of 15

1
2

FOIA Request to BLM
44.

Also on April 2, 2018, Plaintiffs submitted a FOIA request to BLM seeking

3

similar records—regarding policies or guidelines governing BLM’s handling, processing, and

4

disposition of FOIA requests created, stored, or received since January 20, 2017 (“April 2 BLM

5

Request”). See Ex. B, attached. The April 2 BLM Request also identified five specific

6

categories of records that Plaintiffs requested and provided a detailed description of the records

7

sought for each category. Id. Both Plaintiffs established their status as “representatives of the

8

news media” in this request. Id. at 11-13.

9

45.

Having received no acknowledgement from BLM regarding the request, Plaintiffs

10

contacted BLM on April 11 and April 13 seeking the status of the request. BLM provided no

11

response.

12

46.

On April 19, 2018, Plaintiffs again contacted BLM seeking the status of the

13

request. On April 19, BLM FOIA Officer Ryan Witt responded via email that he would “check

14

with our Washington Office FOIA specialists and get an update on the acknowledgement and

15

processing of your request.” Ex. D at 2, attached.

16

47.

On April 20, BLM acknowledged in an email that it received the FOIA request,

17

assigning it control number 2018-00730. Id. Although BLM had not yet assessed the universe

18

of responsive records, it placed the request in the “Complex” processing track.

19

48.

The acknowledgement did not provide a determination on the scope of the

20

documents BLM would produce, nor did it indicate any planned withholdings or exemptions.

21

See generally id.

22

49.

23
24

The due date for BLM’s FOIA determination on the April 2 BLM Request was

April 27, 2018. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A); 43 C.F.R. § 2.16(a).
50.

On May 29, Plaintiffs contacted BLM’s FOIA office, notifying the agency that

25

BLM’s twenty working-day determination on the April 2 BLM Request was overdue and

26

requesting a determination and response to the FOIA request. BLM failed to respond.

27
28

51.

On June 11, Plaintiffs’ counsel contacted the BLM office to again notify the

agency that its determination was overdue. BLM’s FOIA officer, Mr. Witt, responded that he
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Sierra Club, et al. v. U.S. Department of the Interior, et al. (Case No. 18-cv-3799)

10

 Case 4:18-cv-03799 Document 1 Filed 06/26/18 Page 11 of 15

1

would confer with other BLM FOIA officers and assess BLM’s progress for giving a

2

determination, and that he would contact Plaintiffs’ counsel with this information by the

3

afternoon of June 12. But neither Mr. Witt nor other BLM FOIA officers did so.

4

52.

On June 20, 2018, Plaintiffs’ counsel again contacted BLM for an update on the

5

determination and a timeline for the release of records. A BLM FOIA officer responded that the

6

FOIA office was still searching for records, that the search was incomplete, and that Mr. Witt

7

would be in contact by email regarding the status of the determination.

8
9

53.

On June 22, 2018, Mr. Witt informed Plaintiffs in an emailed letter that BLM

“ha[d] not reached a final determination on whether responsive material is exempt from release,”

10

but that it had “gathered the responsive material and conducted an initial survey to identify the

11

quantity and nature of the records,” that it “expect[s] the pages of responsive material to exceed

12

10,000 pages,” and that it plans to make “monthly interim releases for this request starting in

13

July of 2018.” Ex. E at 3, attached. However, the letter did not provide any information

14

concerning the volume of material that BLM anticipates including in its expected interim

15

releases, or the estimated date by which BLM anticipates making a determination or completing

16

its production of records in response to the request. See generally id.

17
18
19

54.

To date, neither Interior nor BLM has made a determination in response to either

of Plaintiffs’ FOIA requests or released any agency records in response to the requests.
55.

Plaintiffs now bring this action on their own behalf and on behalf of their

20

members. Agency Defendants’ FOIA violations have harmed and continue to harm Plaintiffs

21

and their members by preventing Plaintiffs from gaining and communicating a full understanding

22

of the nature, scope, and rationale behind Agency Defendants’ handling of FOIA requests and

23

administration of the FOIA process. The relief requested below will redress these injuries.

24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Sierra Club, et al. v. U.S. Department of the Interior, et al. (Case No. 18-cv-3799)

11

 Case 4:18-cv-03799 Document 1 Filed 06/26/18 Page 12 of 15

1

3

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
VIOLATION OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
Failure to Make a Determination on FOIA Requests, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)-(7)
(Against Defendant Department of the Interior)

4

56.

2

5

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each of the allegations set forth in

the preceding paragraphs.

6

57.

Plaintiffs properly requested records within Interior’s control.

7

58.

FOIA requires Interior to provide Plaintiffs with a determination on their FOIA

8

request within the timeframe that Congress required through FOIA and an estimated date on

9

which the agency will complete action on the request.

10
11

59.

Interior violated FOIA by failing to make the required determination, or provide

an estimated date of completion, in response to the April 2 Interior Request.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
VIOLATION OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
Failure to Respond to FOIA Requests, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3), (a)(4)(B), (b); 43 C.F.R. § 2.12
(Against Defendant Department of the Interior)
60.

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each of the allegations set forth in

the preceding paragraphs.
61.

FOIA requires Interior to process the records request described herein and to

19

promptly provide responsive records, or any reasonably segregable portions of responsive

20

records, not subject to specified FOIA exemptions.

21

62.

Interior violated FOIA when it failed to promptly disclose records, or to disclose

22

reasonably segregable portions of lawfully exempt records, that are responsive to the April 2

23

Interior Request.

24

63.

Interior has wrongfully withheld the requested records from Plaintiffs.

25

64.

Plaintiffs have exhausted the applicable administrative remedies.

26

65.

Plaintiffs are entitled to obtain the requested records immediately at no cost.

27
28
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Sierra Club, et al. v. U.S. Department of the Interior, et al. (Case No. 18-cv-3799)

12

 Case 4:18-cv-03799 Document 1 Filed 06/26/18 Page 13 of 15

1

3

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
VIOLATION OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
Failure to Make a Determination on FOIA Requests, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)-(7)
(Against Defendant Bureau of Land Management)

4

66.

2

5

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each of the allegations made in the

preceding paragraphs.

6

67.

Plaintiffs properly requested records within BLM’s control.

7

68.

FOIA requires BLM to provide Plaintiffs with a determination on their FOIA

8

request within the timeframe that Congress required through FOIA and an estimated date on

9

which the agency will complete action on the request.

10
11

69.

BLM violated FOIA by failing to make the required determination, or provide an

estimated date of completion, in response to the April 2 BLM Request.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
VIOLATION OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
Failure to Respond to FOIA Requests, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3), (a)(4)(B), (b); 43 C.F.R. § 2.12
(Against Defendant Bureau of Land Management)
70.

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each of the allegations set forth in

the preceding paragraphs.
71.

FOIA requires BLM to process the Plaintiffs’ FOIA request and to provide

19

responsive records, or any reasonably segregable portions of responsive records, not subject to a

20

FOIA exemption.

21

72.

22

BLM violated FOIA when it failed to provide records, or reasonably segregable

portions of lawfully exempt responsive records, responsive to the April 2 BLM Request.

23

73.

BLM has wrongfully withheld the requested records from Plaintiffs.

24

74.

Plaintiffs have exhausted the applicable administrative remedies.

25

75.

Plaintiffs are entitled to obtain the requested records immediately at no cost.

26
27
28
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Sierra Club, et al. v. U.S. Department of the Interior, et al. (Case No. 18-cv-3799)

13

 Case 4:18-cv-03799 Document 1 Filed 06/26/18 Page 14 of 15

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Court:
1.

Declare that Agency Defendants’ failure to respond to Plaintiffs’ FOIA requests,

as alleged above, are unlawful under FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i);
2.

Order Agency Defendants to provide a determination on Plaintiffs’ FOIA requests

as required by FOIA;
3.

Order Agency Defendants to conduct searches that are reasonably calculated to

8

locate all records—up to the date when the searches are conducted—responsive to Plaintiffs’

9

FOIA requests, at no cost to Plaintiffs;

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

4.

Order Agency Defendants to promptly provide Plaintiffs all responsive records—

or reasonably segregable portions of lawfully exempt records—at no cost to Plaintiffs;
5.

Retain jurisdiction over this action to rule on any assertions by Agency

Defendants that any responsive records, in whole or in part, are exempt from disclosure;
6.

Award Plaintiffs their costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 5 U.S.C.

§ 552(a)(4)(E) or 28 U.S.C. § 2412; and
7.

Grant such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Respectfully submitted this 26th day of June 2018,
/s/ Yuting Chi
Yuting Chi, CA Bar No. 310177
Earthjustice
633 17th Street, Suite 1600
Denver, CO 80202
ychi@earthjustice.org
Tel: (303) 996-9623
Fax: (303) 623-8083
Adrienne Bloch, CA Bar No. 215471
Earthjustice
50 California Street, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94111
abloch@earthjustice.org
Tel: (415) 217-2164
Fax: (415) 217-2040

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Sierra Club, et al. v. U.S. Department of the Interior, et al. (Case No. 18-cv-3799)

14

 Case 4:18-cv-03799 Document 1 Filed 06/26/18 Page 15 of 15

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Thomas Cmar, N.Y. Bar No. 4289443
(pro hac vice pending)
Earthjustice
1101 Lake Street, Suite 405B
Oak Park, IL 60301
tcmar@earthjustice.org
Tel: (312) 257-9338
Fax: (212) 918-1556
Counsel for Plaintiffs Sierra Club and Friends
of the Earth

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Sierra Club, et al. v. U.S. Department of the Interior, et al. (Case No. 18-cv-3799)

15