Environmental Integrity Project v. Small Business Administration ( 2014 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY
PROJECT, et al.
Plaintiffs,
v. Case No. 1:13-cv-01962 (CRC)
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
Three non-profit environmental advocacy organizations—Environmental Integrity Project,
Earthjustice, and The Sierra Club—submitted Freedom of Information Act requests for records
concerning an EPA rulemaking that revised effluent limits for steam-powered electric plants
(“Steam Rule”). Compl. ¶ 1. From the Small Business Administration (“SBA”), the groups
requested: (1) records relating to communications between SBA and interest groups regarding the
Steam Rule; (2) records relating to communications between SBA, EPA, the Office of Management
and Budget (“OMB”), the Council on Environmental Quality, and the White House; and (3) records
on various types of coal-plant waste. Id. ¶ 36. On the same day, the groups submitted requests to
OMB for: (1) records relating to communications between OBM and interest groups regarding the
Steam Rule; (2) records relating to communications between OBM and other government offices
and officials regarding the Steam Rule; and (3) records relating to waste produced by coal plants.
Am. Mot. to Am. Compl. Ex. B. Two months later, the groups sent a request to EPA for, among
other things, data related to pollutant loading and removal calculations, impaired waters databases,
a memorandum on proximity analysis methodology, and a guideline on pollutant removal costs. Id.
Ex. C.
The environmental groups filed this action against SBA on December 9, 2013, to compel the
production of withheld records. On January 29, 2014, they sought leave to amend their complaint
to add EPA and OMB as defendants. The SBA opposes amendment, arguing that the claims against
it are unrelated to those against the EPA and OMB because the latter requests “are at different
administrative stages . . . [and] involve different records . . . and withholdings made under different
exemptions.” Opp. to Am. Mot. to Am. Compl. at 1. The Court held a hearing on the
environmental groups’ motion on May 29, 2014.
A party may amend its pleadings more than 21 days after service with leave of the Court
when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). FRCP 20(a)(2) permits joinder of parties as
defendants if claims against them arise out of the same transaction or occurrence as the underlying
case and there are common questions of law or fact. “Actions ‘arising out of the same transaction,
occurrence, or series of transactions’ must be logically related claims.” Pinson v. Dep’t of Justice,
975 F. Supp. 2d, 20, 27 (D.D.C. 2013) (quoting Disparte v. Corp. Exec. Bd., 223 F.R.D. 7, 10
(D.D.C. 2004)). “Courts have discretion to permit or deny a joinder to ‘promote convenience and
expedite resolution,’ but may not join claims that do not arise from the same transaction or share a
common question of law or fact.” Id. (quoting Montgomery v. STG Int’l Inc., 532 F. Supp. 2d 29,
35 (D.D.C. 2008)). The Court should also consider, under FRPC 21, whether joinder would
prejudice any party or result in undue delay. E.g., M.K. v. Tenet, 216 F.R.D. 133, 138 (D.D.C.
2002).
Plaintiffs’ claims against OMB are factually related to their claims against SBA. The
groups requested essentially identical categories of records from the two agencies on the same day
regarding the same underlying subject matter: inter- and intra-agency communications regarding the
Steam Rule. Am. Mot. to Am. Compl. Ex. 1 & 2. Common questions of law also arise from these
requests as SBA and OMB both invoke FOIA Exemption 5 to justify their withholdings, which the
environmental groups expect to challenge. See Shapiro v. Dep’t of Justice, 13-555, 2013 WL
2
5287615, at *1 (D.D.C. Sept. 19, 2013) (declining to sever separate FOIA claims where the agency
invoked the same exemption to justify withholding records regarding similar general subject
matters). Although SBA maintains that resolution of its anticipated summary judgment motion
would be delayed if OMB is required to search a considerably larger database of records, Opp. to
Am. Mot. to Am. Compl. at 11–12, SBA points to no prejudice it might suffer by waiting a
reasonable period of time to move for summary judgment.
The environmental groups’ claims against EPA, however, are not sufficiently related to this
case to warrant the joinder of EPA as a defendant. Merely because FOIA requests target the same
general subject matter, such as the effluent rulemaking here, does not mean they are related for
purposes of Rule 20. See Pinson, 975 F. Supp. 2d at 30 (Rule 20(a) joinder not appropriate simply
because parties “made similar types of FOIA requests to the Defendants”). The requests to EPA
were for specific and voluminous technical data the EPA used in its rulemaking, which is quite
different from the inter and intra-agency communications the environmental groups requested from
SBA and OMB. The EPA requests also raise distinct legal issues because the EPA based its
withholdings on a different FOIA exemption—Exemption 6. And, as both parties acknowledged at
the hearing before the Court, there will likely be substantial additional delay caused by EPA’s
continuing confidential business information determinations under Exemption 6 before the
environmental groups’ claims against it can be adjudicated.
For these reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint [Dkt. No.
14] is granted in part and denied in part. It is further
ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file an Amended Complaint joining OMB but not EPA on
or before June 23, 2014.
3
SO ORDERED.
Date: June 16, 2014
CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER
United States District Judge
4