{"id":5099,"date":"2017-08-25T11:23:38","date_gmt":"2017-08-25T16:23:38","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/?p=5099"},"modified":"2017-09-12T15:06:49","modified_gmt":"2017-09-12T20:06:49","slug":"d-c-district-court-upholds-protections-for-noaa-climate-scientists-research-materials","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2017\/08\/25\/d-c-district-court-upholds-protections-for-noaa-climate-scientists-research-materials\/","title":{"rendered":"D.C. District Court Upholds Protections for NOAA Climate Scientists’ Research Materials"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

On August 21, the federal District Court for the District of Columbia upheld the decision<\/a> by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to withhold NOAA climate scientists\u2019 research documents from release to the conservative group Judicial Watch.<\/p>\n

Judicial Watch sought to use the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) \u2013 which allows citizens to request copies of government documents \u2013 to obtain NOAA scientists\u2019 emails, drafts, and peer review comments regarding a June 2015 paper published in Science<\/em><\/a>. \u00a0This paper, sometimes referred to as the \u201cHiatus Paper,\u201d found that recent ocean surface temperature increases were greater than some other studies had indicated, and that there had been no \u201chiatus\u201d in ocean warming as some have argued.\u00a0 Judicial Watch\u2019s president claimed that<\/a> the requested NOAA documents \u201cwill show that the Obama administration put politics before science to advance global warming alarmism.\u201d<\/p>\n

NOAA produced some of the documents Judicial Watch requested, but withheld others, arguing that they were protected under the \u201cdeliberative process privilege.\u201d<\/p>\n

This deliberative process privilege allows for the denial of a FOIA request if it can be shown the requested government documents involve materials that are \u201cpredecisional,\u201d meaning written as part of the decisionmaking process, and \u201cdeliberative,\u201d meaning involving consultative give-and-take.\u00a0 The rationale for this privilege is to safeguard preliminary documents that, if they were released, would chill candid collaboration and open debate conducted before a final decision is made.<\/p>\n

The deliberative process privilege was initially developed to protect agency policymaking materials but, over the years, it has also been applied to protect agency scientific research with the understanding that the free exchange of ideas is just as important in scientific research as it is in policymaking.\u00a0 (See<\/em>, e.g.<\/em>, Formaldehyde Inst. v. Dep\u2019t of Health and Human Servs.<\/em>, 889 F.2d 1118 (D.C. Cir. 1989), which held that reviewers\u2019 comments regarding an unpublished scientific study were protected under FOIA as deliberative material.)<\/p>\n

In the present case, NOAA argued that the privilege exists to protect the sort of deliberative materials that are the heart of the scientific process.\u00a0 \u201cIn pursuing a research objective, scientists may begin with only a rough idea, and then develop, test, and revise that idea as data is collected and interpreted. \u00a0Possible interpretations are generated and tested in part through candid debates and exchanges among peers. \u00a0Indeed, the exchange and debate among peers is the mechanism that allows NOAA to ensure its scientific products are robustly developed and accurately tested.\u201d\u00a0 NOAA December 15, 2016 Motion for Summary Judgment at 12 (internal citations omitted).\u00a0 In withholding the documents, NOAA argued that it is \u201ccritical that this type of information be protected so as not to chill candid exchanges and debates, as well as to avoid the risk of confusing the public with preliminary or incomplete information.\u201d\u00a0 Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

Judicial Watch claimed that the deliberative process privilege could not be applied to scientific materials, but the district court sided with NOAA, concluding that both the case law in the D.C. Circuit as well as the facts of the case showed that \u201cdrafts of the Hiatus Paper, internal deliberations, and peer reviewer comments thus fall within the scope of [FOIA] Exemption 5,\u201d which includes the deliberative process privilege. August 21, 2017 Opinion at 3.<\/p>\n

The district court also dismissed Judicial Watch\u2019s claims that a February 2017 article in The Mail on Sunday<\/em>, which involved claims from a former NOAA employee that certain data archiving protocols had not been completed for the Hiatus Paper, showed potential wrongdoing sufficient to overcome the privilege.\u00a0 Judicial Watch \u201ccites to a single article in a British tabloid reporting, based on a former employee\u2019s allegation\u201d which \u201cdoes not meet th[e] narrow standard\u201d necessary to show \u201cnefarious government misconduct.\u201d\u00a0 Opinion at 4.\u00a0 The district court noted that \u201c[s]ince the very purpose of FOIA is to help uncover government misconduct, if any allegation of misconduct sufficed to pierce the deliberative process privilege, the exception would soon swallow the privilege whole.\u201d\u00a0 Id.<\/em> at 3.<\/p>\n

The case follows an inquiry by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), who issued a Congressional subpoena<\/a> in October 2015 for same NOAA documents underlying the Hiatus Paper.\u00a0 Rep. Smith, chair of the House Science Committee, claimed that<\/a> in the Hiatus Paper, NOAA \u201caltered the data to get the results they needed to advance [the Obama] administration\u2019s extreme climate change agenda.\u201d\u00a0 NOAA provided Rep. Smith copies<\/a> of all of the study methodologies and data \u2013 the materials necessary to evaluate and replicate the study, which were already in the public domain \u2013 and produced about 100 non-scientist emails.\u00a0 However, the agency steadfastly refused to produce the NOAA scientists\u2019 internal drafts and peer review correspondence.\u00a0 In a statement, NOAA explained that<\/a> \u201cthe confidentiality of these communications among scientists is essential to frank discourse among scientists\u201d and it \u201cis a long-standing practice in the scientific community to protect the confidentiality of deliberative scientific discussions.\u201d<\/p>\n

The scientific community also spoke out against Rep. Smith\u2019s requests; one letter<\/a>, signed by eight major scientific societies, reiterated the importance of sharing study data and methodologies but criticized \u201cbroad inquiries [that] threaten to inhibit the free exchange of ideas across scientific disciplines.\u201d\u00a0 The societies\u2019 letter also pointed out that other studies following the Hiatus Paper had evaluated the same issue using independent data sources, and that \u201c[t]his is the way that science advances.” \u00a0(See here<\/a> for a study that came up with the same results as the Hiatus Paper, and here<\/a> for a study that came up with a different result.)<\/p>\n

Judicial Watch\u2019s FOIA case also is part of a larger trend by groups that dispute the scientific reality of climate change attempting to use FOIA or state open records laws to access publicly-funded climate scientists\u2019 private correspondence, including cases in\u00a0Arizona<\/a> (currently on appeal) and\u00a0Virginia<\/a>.\u00a0 Researchers in other fields \u2013 from biomedical researchers<\/a> to environmental health scientists<\/a> \u2013 have similarly been targeted under open records laws by hostile groups.\u00a0 In light of these abuses, many jurisdictions have begun instituting protections for scientific research under open records laws, including most recently Rhode Island<\/a> (effective June 27, 2017) and North Dakota<\/a> (effective August 1, 2017).<\/p>\n

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Judicial Watch has 30 days to appeal the district court\u2019s decision.<\/p>\n

Lauren Kurtz is the Executive Director of the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, which filed an amicus brief<\/a>, joined by the American Meteorological Society and the Union of Concerned Scientists, in support of NOAA in this case.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

On August 21, the federal District Court for the District of Columbia upheld the decision by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to withhold NOAA climate scientists\u2019 research documents from release to the conservative group Judicial Watch. Judicial Watch sought to use the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) \u2013 which allows citizens to request […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1475,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5673],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-5099","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-litigation","7":"czr-hentry"},"yoast_head":"\nD.C. District Court Upholds Protections for NOAA Climate Scientists' Research Materials - Climate Law Blog<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2017\/08\/25\/d-c-district-court-upholds-protections-for-noaa-climate-scientists-research-materials\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"D.C. District Court Upholds Protections for NOAA Climate Scientists' Research Materials - Climate Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"On August 21, the federal District Court for the District of Columbia upheld the decision by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to withhold NOAA climate scientists\u2019 research documents from release to the conservative group Judicial Watch. Judicial Watch sought to use the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) \u2013 which allows citizens to request […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2017\/08\/25\/d-c-district-court-upholds-protections-for-noaa-climate-scientists-research-materials\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Climate Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2017-08-25T16:23:38+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-12T20:06:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Lauren Kurtz\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@sabincenter\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@sabincenter\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Lauren Kurtz\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2017\/08\/25\/d-c-district-court-upholds-protections-for-noaa-climate-scientists-research-materials\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2017\/08\/25\/d-c-district-court-upholds-protections-for-noaa-climate-scientists-research-materials\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Lauren Kurtz\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/24391fadda6350506112790b673e59c1\"},\"headline\":\"D.C. District Court Upholds Protections for NOAA Climate Scientists’ Research Materials\",\"datePublished\":\"2017-08-25T16:23:38+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-12T20:06:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2017\/08\/25\/d-c-district-court-upholds-protections-for-noaa-climate-scientists-research-materials\/\"},\"wordCount\":1064,\"commentCount\":1,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Climate Litigation\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2017\/08\/25\/d-c-district-court-upholds-protections-for-noaa-climate-scientists-research-materials\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2017\/08\/25\/d-c-district-court-upholds-protections-for-noaa-climate-scientists-research-materials\/\",\"name\":\"D.C. District Court Upholds Protections for NOAA Climate Scientists' Research Materials - Climate Law Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2017-08-25T16:23:38+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-12T20:06:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2017\/08\/25\/d-c-district-court-upholds-protections-for-noaa-climate-scientists-research-materials\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2017\/08\/25\/d-c-district-court-upholds-protections-for-noaa-climate-scientists-research-materials\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2017\/08\/25\/d-c-district-court-upholds-protections-for-noaa-climate-scientists-research-materials\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"D.C. District Court Upholds Protections for NOAA Climate Scientists’ Research Materials\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/\",\"name\":\"Climate Law Blog\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2023\/02\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2023\/02\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png\",\"width\":2752,\"height\":260,\"caption\":\"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/x.com\/sabincenter\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/24391fadda6350506112790b673e59c1\",\"name\":\"Lauren Kurtz\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/author\/lkurtz\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"D.C. District Court Upholds Protections for NOAA Climate Scientists' Research Materials - Climate Law Blog","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2017\/08\/25\/d-c-district-court-upholds-protections-for-noaa-climate-scientists-research-materials\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"D.C. District Court Upholds Protections for NOAA Climate Scientists' Research Materials - Climate Law Blog","og_description":"On August 21, the federal District Court for the District of Columbia upheld the decision by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to withhold NOAA climate scientists\u2019 research documents from release to the conservative group Judicial Watch. Judicial Watch sought to use the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) \u2013 which allows citizens to request […]","og_url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2017\/08\/25\/d-c-district-court-upholds-protections-for-noaa-climate-scientists-research-materials\/","og_site_name":"Climate Law Blog","article_published_time":"2017-08-25T16:23:38+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-12T20:06:49+00:00","author":"Lauren Kurtz","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@sabincenter","twitter_site":"@sabincenter","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Lauren Kurtz","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2017\/08\/25\/d-c-district-court-upholds-protections-for-noaa-climate-scientists-research-materials\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2017\/08\/25\/d-c-district-court-upholds-protections-for-noaa-climate-scientists-research-materials\/"},"author":{"name":"Lauren Kurtz","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/24391fadda6350506112790b673e59c1"},"headline":"D.C. District Court Upholds Protections for NOAA Climate Scientists’ Research Materials","datePublished":"2017-08-25T16:23:38+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-12T20:06:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2017\/08\/25\/d-c-district-court-upholds-protections-for-noaa-climate-scientists-research-materials\/"},"wordCount":1064,"commentCount":1,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Climate Litigation"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2017\/08\/25\/d-c-district-court-upholds-protections-for-noaa-climate-scientists-research-materials\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2017\/08\/25\/d-c-district-court-upholds-protections-for-noaa-climate-scientists-research-materials\/","name":"D.C. District Court Upholds Protections for NOAA Climate Scientists' Research Materials - Climate Law Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#website"},"datePublished":"2017-08-25T16:23:38+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-12T20:06:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2017\/08\/25\/d-c-district-court-upholds-protections-for-noaa-climate-scientists-research-materials\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2017\/08\/25\/d-c-district-court-upholds-protections-for-noaa-climate-scientists-research-materials\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2017\/08\/25\/d-c-district-court-upholds-protections-for-noaa-climate-scientists-research-materials\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"D.C. District Court Upholds Protections for NOAA Climate Scientists’ Research Materials"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#website","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/","name":"Climate Law Blog","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization","name":"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2023\/02\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2023\/02\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png","width":2752,"height":260,"caption":"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/x.com\/sabincenter"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/24391fadda6350506112790b673e59c1","name":"Lauren Kurtz","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/author\/lkurtz\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5099","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1475"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5099"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5099\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5099"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5099"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5099"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}