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

Fritz Mulhauser | November 17, 2024 | Last modified: November 18, 2024

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 could 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 main arguments. Those included 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 that the special high level reviews continue now,. Her request for a forward-looking injunction was dismissed.

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 may be unlikely after the parties’ two years of bruising factfinding (featuring “more disputes than the court would care to remember”). Phillips got thousands of requests by reporters and advocacy groups who, like her, also had histories of using records to publicize police problems. FOIA expert Professor Margaret Kwoka evaluated handling of those requests.

The opinion acknowledges that the court did not evaluate the evidence at this stage (called “summary judgment” when the court evaluates claims without trial): “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.