Dramatic FOIA Case Has Enough Evidence to Move Ahead: Possible Trial Could Air Charges that D.C. Police Brass Delayed and Denied Requests from Critics

DC defense attorney Amy Phillips can proceed to trial in her unique case alleging high officials of the Metropolitan Police Department interfered with public records requests from department critics. That’s the conclusion of a federal judge, that Phillips has shown “enough evidence for a reasonable jury to find that the Chiefs’ subordinates instantiated a custom of burdening FOIA requests coming from MPD critics and that the Chiefs were aware or at least should have been aware of this practice.” 

The case may offer a rare glimpse of evidence addressing a common fear of a skeptical public: that powerful government officials may misuse their authority in order to hinder requests for records that could prove embarrassing.

The decision by U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg found no support for the D.C. government’s arguments that there was no such policy, that requests have always been handled individually on the merits as the law requires, and that chiefs only talked over requests of interest to prepare for possible later public inquiries.

The case covers the years beginning in 2018, but the court noted Phillips lacked evidence the special reviews continue now, so no request for a forward-looking injunction would be allowed.

The ruling clears the way for a trial unless settlement discussions, due to end on December 16, uncover any common ground for ending the case. That might be unlikely since the court ruling came after two years of bruising factfinding (featuring “more disputes than the court would care to remember”), including evaluating the treatment of thousands of requests by reporters and advocacy groups who, like Ms. Phillips, also had histories of using records to publicize police problems.

The opinion acknowledges that the court did not evaluate the evidence at this stage (called “summary judgment”): “In the end, the Court is not tasked with picking apart Plaintiff’s evidence, making credibility determinations for the various witnesses in the case, or weighing the evidence in the record one way or another.  The question it is called to answer is much simpler: has Phillips produced enough to show that ‘a reasonable jury could return a verdict’ for her?”

To that, the court answered yes, “she has met her burden.”

The case is Phillips v. District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 22-277 (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia). The next court event is the parties’ status report, due December 17.