Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Brian Huddleston sued the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice over pending Freedom of Information Act requests. The FBI had identified more than 20,000 potentially responsive pages, while DOJ had located tens of thousands of potentially responsive pages and was continuing to review its search results.
The agencies moved to stay the scheduling-order deadlines, citing the volume of documents and reduced FOIA-processing resources during the COVID-19 pandemic. They initially requested three additional months to complete certain tasks, after which they proposed providing an updated search status and a production schedule.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. It recognized that the COVID-19 pandemic could qualify as an exceptional circumstance under FOIA, but held that the agencies had not adequately shown the required due diligence. Their proposed schedule was too indefinite, and projected processing rates of 250 pages per month during reduced staffing and 500 pages per month after normal staffing resumed could make the FBI’s production alone take approximately three years and four months to nearly seven years.
Although the court declined to grant the open-ended relief the agencies sought, it exercised its inherent docket-management authority to extend the existing deadlines. It required the agencies to complete document production and provide a Vaughn index by April 23, 2021, followed by staged summary-judgment briefing through July 21, 2021.
Key Takeaways
- COVID-19-related disruptions may constitute exceptional circumstances under FOIA, but an agency must also demonstrate due diligence.
- A vague production plan and processing rates that could delay disclosure for years did not justify the requested stay.
- The court imposed a firm production deadline and revised the summary-judgment schedule instead of allowing an indefinite delay.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that extraordinary operational difficulties do not eliminate an agency’s obligation to provide concrete information about its processing efforts and timetable. Courts may reject schedules that would deprive requested information of its value through prolonged delay.
At the same time, the ruling leaves room for reasonable extensions when agencies precisely explain the exceptional circumstances affecting a request and present a definite, adequately supported production schedule.