Case 5:10-cv-00784-FB Document 38 Filed 11/28/11 Page 1 of 22 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT r t i FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS r L I SAN ANTONIO DIVISION NOV 2 8 2011 CLERK JOHN EAKIN, § WBEYST EIN0. 9D.I $DTIRS R1COTF CTOEUXRATS Plaintiff, § DEUTY CLERK § vs. NO. SA-1O-CA-784-FB-NSN § § UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT § OF DEFENSE, LEON E. PANETTA, § Secretary of Defense, UNITED STATES § DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, § JOHN McHUGH, Secretary of the Army § Defendants § MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSED MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OR ALLOW DISCOVERY AND MOTION FOR MODIFIED SCHEDULING ORDER A. Introduction This action stems from the failure of defendants US Department of Defense (DoD) and US Department of the Army (Army) to comply with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act by their refusal to provide the requested documents within the statutory time limits; their calculation of fees; and their refusal to grant plaintiffs application for a waiver of fees. Most recently, Plaintiff came in to possession of a substantial quantity of digital documents not previously acknowledged by Defendants and information that additional responsive documents exist in digital format. The existence of these documents show that Defendants improperly denied Plaintiffs request for waiver of fees and inflated fees in order to discourage Plaintiffs request for documents under FOIA. Counsel for Defendants was notified of the withheld documents via letter dated August 16, 2011 and email dated September 22, 2011. Plaintiff and Counsel for Case 5:10-cv-00784-FB Document 38 Filed 11/28/11 Page 2 of 22 Defendants have discussed the situation, yet no explanation for the discrepancies has been forthcoming from Defendants. Defendants have falsely represented that all responsive digital documents have been produced to Plaintiff by their answer number 12 to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and by Defendants' Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs opposed Motion to Strike Defendants' Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Partial or Final Summary Judgment and Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Rule 11 Motion for Sanctions at page 2. B. Summary of this Litigation. This is a FOJA lawsuit which seeks to obtain certain records concerning World War II American Servicemembers who died while prisoners of war and whose remains were declared to be non-recoverable. Defendant's only claim that any portion of the requested documents were exempt from release under FOIA has been resolved and withdrawn by Defendants. Defendant claims the requested records comprise approximately 165,000 (hardcopy) pages and would cost $24,000 to reproduce in the requested digital format. In the course of this litigation, Defendant further objected to reproduction of the requested documents on the grounds that Plaintiffs request was unreasonably broad and compliance would be burdensome. Plaintiff requested the duplication fees be waived on the grounds that doing so would be in the public interest andlor that he met the requirements to be considered a representative of the news media. 2 Case 5:10-cv-00784-FB Document 38 Filed 11/28/11 Page 3 of 22 Both parties filed Motions for Summary Judgment currently pending before this Court. Plaintiff now states to the court that he has received and has in his possession a substantial quantity of responsive documents that have been withheld by Defendants and were not considered in calculation of the estimated costs of duplication. Plaintiff further states that he has good reason to believe that there are an additional unknown quantity of still unacknowledged documents. Consequently, the number of documents to be reproduced by scanning (if any) is substantially less than stated by Defendants and therefore the actual cost is significantly less than stated by Defendant. Without a reasonably precise estimate of the quantity of documents and cost of reproduction Plaintiff can not effectively argue for the requested waiver of fees. Nor can this Court make an informed judgment on the merits of either parties case. Further, FOIA fees may not be inflated to discourage requests for documents. Defendants, in asserting that Plaintiff's request is unreasonably broad, have raised the issue of the true number of documents in question and Plaintiff should be allowed to determine the actual number of documents still to be digitized. Further, the existence of a substantial volume of unacknowledged responsive documents raises issues of misconduct by Defendants in falsely stating that Plaintiffs FOIA request comprised 165,000 pages to be reproduced at a cost of approximately $24,000. Selective disclosure exhibited by the government is offensive to the purposes underlying the FOIA and intolerable as a matter of policy. Preferential treatment of persons or interest groups fosters precisely the distrust of government that the FOIA was 3 Case 5:10-cv-00784-FB Document 38 Filed 11/28/11 Page 4 of 22 intended to obviate. North Dakota ex rel. Olson v. Andrus, 581 F.2d 177, 182 (8th Cir. 1978) C. Newly Discovered Documents On June 27, 2011, subsequent to the filing by both parties of Motions for Summary Judgment, and responses and replies thereto, Plaintiff filed new FOIA requests with the Department of Defense (DoD), U.S. Army Human Resources Command (Army HRC) and the DoD Joint Prisoners of War/Missing in Action Accounting Command (JPAC). These newly filed FOIA requests were in no way connected with this litigation other than some of the requested documents were common. These newly filed FOIA requests were for all Individual Deceased Personnel Files (IDPF) and for similar files pertaining to unidentified human remains known as X-files that currently exist in digitalformat. In other words, this new request encompassed the documents (and many others) which are the subject of this litigation and which had already been digitized by scanning. See Exhibits 2A, 2B, 2C On July 12, 2011, Plaintiff was notified by Army HRC that they were releasing all such files in their custody. Over a several week period, Plaintiff received eleven CD- ROM disks containing approximately 3,600 X-files and nineteen CD-ROM disks containing approximately 1,730 IDPF files. All files were in the common .PDF file format as used by this Court. See Exhibit 3. Duplication of these digital files did not meet the minimum threshold for and no reimbursement was required of Plaintiff by Army HRC. Analysis and review of the newly obtained documents is ongoing. To date, Plaintiff has determined that: 4 Case 5:10-cv-00784-FB Document 38 Filed 11/28/11 Page 5 of 22 At least 97 of the IDPF files would have been responsive to Plaintiffs original FOIA request which is the subject of this litigation. However, the file creation dates on these files are all subsequent to Plaintiff's original request and there is no way to determine exactly when they were digitized. 2. At least 868 of the X-files would have been responsive to Plaintiffs original FOIA request which is the subject of this litigation. Further, these files were dated more than one year prior to Plaintiff's original request so they were responsive, but withheld by Defendants. 3. There exists substantial evidence of the existence of additional digital documents responsive to the FOIA request which is the subject of this litigation, but still withheld by Defendants. Declarations presented by Defendants own witnesses have stated that DPMO had a program to digitize the subject files which began prior to commencement of this litigation and such program continues thru the present. In addition, the Joint MIA/POW Accounting Command, a component of Defendant DoD has stated in an email that they also have digital files likely to be responsive. D. Defendants Misconduct Plaintiff believes the newly obtained X-files constitute at least twenty-five to thirty percent of the total X-files responsive to the FOIA request which is the subject of this litigation. Further, there is good reason to believe there are a substantial quantity of additional responsive files in existence and that digitization efforts are ongoing. Obviously, the original duplication cost of $24,000 is substantially overstated in light of these newly discovered files. Case 5:10-cv-00784-FB Document 38 Filed 11/28/11 Page 6 of 22 Testimony by Dr. Chambers that scanning of these files began prior to Plaintiff's FOIA request and is an ongoing project indicates that Defendant DoD was aware of the existence of these files yet they have been deliberately withheld from Plaintiff and this Court. See Chambers dccl, document 25-3 and excerpts in Eakin decl attached. Plaintiff believes that his Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendant's Cross- Motion for Summary Judgment, currently pending before this court, are both essentially now moot because they are based on Defendant's false statement of the number of pages to be reproduced. Defendants can not calculate the cost of reproduction without a reasonably precise estimate of the number of pages to be duplicated and cannot comply with the requirement of 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(i) to determine if a fee should be assessed, reduced and/or waived. Without a reasonably precise estimate of the cost of duplication of the requested documents Plaintiff is unfairly disadvantaged in this litigation and this Court is unable to knowingly evaluate the arguments presented by either party. Inflation of FOIA fees to deny access is prohibited. In National Treasury Employees Union v. GrfJmn, ("NTEU") 811 F.2d 644 (D.C. Cir. 1987), the D.C. Circuit wrote that it would be "highly improper" for an agency to inflate the fees requested "with a view in effectively denying access." Id at 650. The D.C. Circuit further stated that "the 1974 amendments to FOIA adding the language on fee waivers and reasonable standard charges were clearly aimed at preventing agencies from using high fees to discourage requests." Id; S. Rep. No. 93-864, at 11-12 (1974). Defendants calculation of estimated duplication costs to fulfill this request are clearly erroneous and serve simply to discourage requester in violation of its own regulations. Case 5:10-cv-00784-FB Document 38 Filed 11/28/11 Page 7 of 22 Fee assessment. Fees may not be used to discourage requesters, and to this end, FOIA fees are limited to standard charges for direct document search, review (in the case of commercial requesters) and duplication. 32 CFR 518.19(e) § Plaintiff has shown that Defendant has withheld a substantial quantity of responsive records which are already digitized and for which the cost of duplication is mere pennies (the price of a blank CD-ROM disk) or less if electronically transmitted as requested by Plaintiff. Yet, Defendant disregards these already digitized records in an attempt to discourage Plaintiff by concocting an estimated cost of $24,000 for scanning 165,000 pages at $0.15 per page when the actual cost to copy the same volume of digital files to CD/DVD should be less than $100.00. Whether the withholding of documents is accidental or deliberate, the effect is to discourage document requests under the FOIA. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(ii); Hall v. CIA, No. 04-08 14, 2006 WL 197462, at 3 & n.4 (D.D.C. Jan. 25, 2006); S. Rep. No. 93- 1200, 93rd Cong., 2nd Sess., October 1, 1974 at 8. CONCLUSION Therefore, Plaintiff requests this Court to compel Defendants to fully and completely produce documents which they have represented as having been produced to Plaintiff and for which they have not claimed are exempt under the Freedom of Information Act. Alternatively, Plaintiff respectfully requests to be permitted to conduct discovery of Defendants for the limited purpose of ascertaining the true number of responsive documents and related information concerning their location, when produced 7 Case 5:10-cv-00784-FB Document 38 Filed 11/28/11 Page 8 of 22 and ongoing digitization plans. Plaintiff further requests additional time for parties to file dispositive motions. Plaintiff apologizes and asks the Court's indulgence for this late filing, but points out that this litigation likely never would have been necessary if Defendants had acted in good faith and provided accurate information from the beginning. Dated: Jo akin, Plaintiff pro se ower View, Helotes, TX 78023 210-695-2204 jeakinairsafety.com Case 5:10-cv-00784-FB Document 38 Filed 11/28/11 Page 9 of 22 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION JOHN EAKIN, Plaintiff, NO. SA-lO-CA-784-FB-NSN UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, LEON E. PANETTA, Secretary of Defense, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, JOHN McHUGH, Secretary of the Army Defendants DECLARATION OF JOHN EAKJN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT I, John Eakin, declare as follows: 1. I am the Plaintiff in the above styled litigation. 2. On June 27, 2011, subsequent to the filing by both parties of Motions for Summary Judgment, associated responses and replies, I filed new FOIA requests with the Department of Defense (DoD), U.S. Army Human Resources Command (Army HRC) and the DoD Joint Prisoners of War, Missing in Action Accounting Command (JPAC). These newly filed FOIA requests were in no way connected with this litigation other than some of the requested documents were common. See Exhibits 2A, 2B, 2C. 3. These newly filed FOIA requests were for all Individual Deceased Personnel Files (IDPF) and for similar files pertaining to unidentified human remains known as X-files that currently existed in a digitalformat. In other words, this new request encompassed the documents (and many others) which are the subject of this litigation and which had already been digitized by scanning. Case 5:10-cv-00784-FB Document 38 Filed 11/28/11 Page 10 of 22 4. On July 12, 2011, I was notified by Army HRC that they were releasing all such files in their custody. Over a several week period, I received eleven CD-ROM disks containing approximately 3,600 X-files and nineteen CD-ROM disks containing approximately 1,730 IDPF files. All files were in the common .PDF file format as used by this Court. See Exhibit 3. 5. Duplication of these digital files did not meet the minimum threshold for and no reimbursement was required of Plaintiff by Army HRC. 6. Analysis and review of the newly obtained documents is ongoing. To date, I have determined that: a. At least 97 of the IDPF files would have been responsive to my original FOIA request which is the subject of this litigation. However, the file creation dates on these files are all subsequent to that original request and there is no way to determine exactly when they were digitized. b. At least 868 of the X-files would have been responsive to Plaintiff's original FOIA request which is the subject of this litigation. Further, these files were dated more than one year prior to that original request so they were responsive, but withheld. 7. I believe that the newly obtained X-files constitute at least twenty-five to thirty percent of the total X-files responsive to the original FOIA request which is the subject of this litigation. I consider this to be a very significant change in the cost of reproduction of the requested documents. 8. Further, there is good reason to believe there are a substantial quantity of additional responsive files in existence and that digitization efforts are ongoing.