## Facts

- Civil-liberties organizations submitted FOIA requests on October 7, 2003 to multiple federal agencies seeking records about (1) detainee treatment, (2) detainee deaths in U.S. custody, and (3) rendition to countries associated with torture or illegal interrogation methods, covering the post–September 11, 2001 period.
- A substantially identical FOIA request was later submitted to the Department of Homeland Security on December 13, 2003.
- By mid-September 2004—approximately eleven months after the initial requests—most defendant agencies had, with limited exceptions, neither produced records nor identified responsive documents, nor claimed FOIA exemptions, nor stated objections.
- Plaintiffs filed suit on July 2, 2004 to compel FOIA compliance.
- At a hearing on August 12, 2004, the government argued the case was moot and that judicial intervention was improper because agencies were responding “as soon as practicable.”
- Some components fully responded during the litigation, leading plaintiffs to narrow requested preliminary relief as to those components.

## Issues

1. Whether the court retained jurisdiction under FOIA, and whether the dispute was moot, when agencies began belated processing after suit and asserted they were responding “as soon as practicable.”
2. Whether lengthy agency delay and effective non-response violated FOIA’s timing and response obligations, warranting injunctive relief and a court-ordered expedited processing schedule.

## Decision

- The court held the case was not moot and that it had jurisdiction to enforce FOIA obligations notwithstanding agencies’ post-suit processing efforts.
- The court found the extended lack of meaningful agency action inconsistent with FOIA’s statutory duties to timely determine whether to comply and to communicate that determination.
- The court granted preliminary injunctive relief requiring expedited FOIA processing.
- The court ordered defendants to promptly identify and process responsive records and to either produce non-exempt materials or support any withholdings with specific exemption claims and adequate justifications (including Vaughn-type submissions where appropriate).

## Legal Principles

- FOIA imposes enforceable, mandatory duties on agencies; prolonged silence or open-ended delay after a proper request is unlawful.
- A FOIA case is not rendered moot by assurances of future compliance or partial, unscheduled production; mootness requires actual compliance resolving the live dispute.
- Federal courts may supervise FOIA compliance by ordering timetables and structured procedures for production and exemption justifications.
- When withholding is claimed, agencies must invoke specific FOIA exemptions and provide sufficient factual support to permit judicial review, rather than relying on non-response.

## Conclusion

The court ordered expedited, court-supervised FOIA compliance after finding that months of agency inaction could not be excused by belated processing efforts, and that any non-disclosure had to be justified through specific FOIA exemptions supported by adequate submissions.


Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Dep’t of Def., 339 F. Supp. 2d 501 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)