foia

this is a tag

see FOIA SLAPP node

also legal tag=10/15
is week, CSLDF filed a legal brief as amicus curiae, or “friend of the court,” urging the Arizona Court of Appeals to protect two University of Arizona climate scientists from massive and harassing open records requests.   As described in our <a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://climatesciencedefensefund.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=635c98e780ac7191328d30eeb&id=7e8df4de84&e=15e3916d62" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; outline: none; word-wrap: break-word; line-height: 22.5px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);">brief</a>, a group is claiming that state open records laws entitle it to virtually unfettered access to public university climate scientists’ emails.  These hugely invasive open records requests are a key element of a campaign to harass and intimidate scientists and are part of a broader strategy of attacking individual scientists to try to discredit theories or even entire fields of study.  We have urged the Court to protect scientists’ correspondence against such invasions.  Please read more about our brief and the case <a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://climatesciencedefensefund.us4.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=635c98e780ac7191328d30eeb&id=4c0f2ab407&e=15e3916d62" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; outline: none; word-wrap: break-word; line-height: 22.5px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);">here</a>.   In addition, this month Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) launched an investigation against climate scientist Dr. Jagadish Shukla for engaging in “partisan political activity."  Dr. Shukla wrote a letter to President Obama, supporting a Washington Post op-ed that proposed an inquiry of some corporate opponents to climate action.  Rep. Smith, who has criticized the very notion of man-made climate change (and who has been<a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://climatesciencedefensefund.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=635c98e780ac7191328d30eeb&id=9ed692a787&e=15e3916d62" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; outline: none; word-wrap: break-word; line-height: 22.5px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);">well-supported by the oil and gas industries</a>), seems to believe Dr. Shukla was thus guilty of “<a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://climatesciencedefensefund.us4.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=635c98e780ac7191328d30eeb&id=463862ba6e&e=15e3916d62" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; outline: none; word-wrap: break-word; line-height: 22.5px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);">unwelcome politics</a>” worthy of a Congressional investigation.  <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://climatesciencedefensefund.us4.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=635c98e780ac7191328d30eeb&id=940e322f64&e=15e3916d62" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; outline: none; word-wrap: break-word; line-height: 22.5px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);">CSLDF has been working to help defend Dr. Shukla</a>, including arranging attorney assistance to help him navigate what appears to be a clearly ideologically-motived Congressional probe. =<a href="http://ecowatch.com/2015/10/05/ralph-nader-monsanto-foia">http://ecowatch.com/2015/10/05/ralph-nader-monsanto-foia</a>

... 50th anniThe FOIA was championed by Congressman John E. Moss (D-CA), who strove to “guarantee the right of every citizen to know the facts of his government.” Moss, with whom I worked closely as an outside citizen advocate, said that “without the fullest possible access to government information, it is impossible to gain the knowledge necessary to discharge the responsibilities of citizenship.”All fifty states have adopted FOIA statutes.As the FOIA approaches its 50th year, it faces a disturbing backlash from scientists tied to the agrichemical company <a href="http://ecowatch.com/?s=monsanto" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">Monsanto</a> and its allies. Here are some examples.On March 9, three former presidents of the American Association for the Advancement of Science—all with ties to Monsanto or the biotech industry—wrote in the pages of the Guardian to <a href="http://nader.us6.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=c5cfd22327c3214afb5955d02&id=757672013d&e=8e411e9705" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">criticize the use of the state FOIA</a> laws to investigate taxpayer-funded scientists who vocally defend Monsanto, the agri-chemical industry, their pesticides and <a href="http://ecowatch.com/news/food-agriculture/gmo-genetically-modified-organism/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">genetically engineered food</a>. They called the FOIAs an “organized attack on science.”The super-secretive Monsanto has <a href="http://nader.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=c5cfd22327c3214afb5955d02&id=22f9389923&e=8e411e9705" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">stated</a>, regarding the FOIAs, that “agenda-driven groups often take individual documents or quotes out of context in an attempt to distort the facts, advance their agenda and stop legitimate research.”Advocates with the venerable Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) do worry that the FOIA can be abused to harass scientists for ideological reasons. This is true; for example, human-caused global warming deniers have abused the FOIA against climate scientists working at state universities like <a href="http://ecowatch.com/author/mmann/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">Michael Mann</a> of Pennsylvania State University.Among other suggestions, UCS recommends the following:<ul style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.625em; padding: 0px 0px 0px 1.25em; color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 25.2px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">“Universities should clarify their policies and procedures with regard to open records requests, ensure that their employees understand these policies and make sure they have considered how they will respond when overly broad requests are used to harass their researchers.”</li></ul><ul style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.625em; padding: 0px 0px 0px 1.25em; color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 25.2px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">“Legislators should examine their open records laws and ensure that they include appropriate exemptions that will protect privacy and academic freedom without compromising accountability.”</li></ul><ul style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.625em; padding: 0px 0px 0px 1.25em; color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 25.2px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">“The National Academy of Sciences and other research organizations should provide guidance to legislators and universities on what should be disclosed and what should be protected.”</li></ul>For more on the UCS positions click <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/center-science-and-democracy/protecting-scientists-harassment/freedom-bully-how-laws." target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">here</a>.The proper response to abuses of the FOIA is not, however, to advocate blocking citizens or reporters from using the FOIA.<a href="http://ecowatch.com/2015/10/05/ralph-nader-monsanto-foia/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(117, 117, 117); transition: color 0.2s linear; outline: 0px; cursor: pointer; background: transparent;">Read page 1</a>There are countless government and corporate scandals that have been revealed by the FOIA, but here are just two from this year.In February, Justin Gillis and John Schwartz of the New York Times used documents obtained by the Greenpeace and the Climate Investigations Center through the FOIA to <a href="http://nader.us6.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=c5cfd22327c3214afb5955d02&id=6d1c21117f&e=8e411e9705" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">expose the corporate ties</a> of the climate-change-denying scientist Wei-Hock “Willie” Soon, who received more than $1.2 million in contributions from the <a href="http://ecowatch.com/news/energy-news/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear initial; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-color: transparent; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">fossil fuel</a> industry over the last ten years. Soon even called his scientific papers “deliverables” to his corporate donors.Another area of risk to food and health was revealed by FOIA requests. There are legitimate concerns about the health and environmental perils of genetically engineered crops and food. And the concerns are mounting. For example, in March, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) <a href="http://nader.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=c5cfd22327c3214afb5955d02&id=cd780ea814&e=8e411e9705" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear initial; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-color: transparent; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">classified the herbicide </a><a href="http://nader.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=c5cfd22327c3214afb5955d02&id=cd780ea814&e=8e411e9705" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">glyphosate</a>—which is sprayed as Roundup on many genetically engineered crops—as “<a href="http://nader.us6.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=c5cfd22327c3214afb5955d02&id=d2b28518af&e=8e411e9705" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear initial; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-color: transparent; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">probably carcinogenic to humans</a>.”On Aug. 20, in the <a href="http://nader.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=c5cfd22327c3214afb5955d02&id=d46b23e8b8&e=8e411e9705" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">New England Journal of Medicine</a>, Philip J. Landrigan and Charles Benbrook wrote that “the argument that there is nothing new about genetic rearrangement misses the point that GM crops are now the agricultural products most heavily treated with herbicides and that two of these herbicides may pose risks of cancer.” <a href="http://nader.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=c5cfd22327c3214afb5955d02&id=e7bf66f61f&e=8e411e9705" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">Another study</a> published on Aug. 25 in the journal Environmental Health suggests that very low levels of exposure to Roundup “can result in liver and kidney damage” in rats, “with potential significant health implications for animal and human populations.”<a href="http://nader.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=c5cfd22327c3214afb5955d02&id=ebac10cdd5&e=8e411e9705" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">U.S. Right to Know</a>, a nonprofit consumer group staffed by consumer advocates, is conducting an investigation of the food and agrichemical industries, including companies like Monsanto and how they use front groups and taxpayer-funded professors at public universities to advance their claims that processed foods, artificial additives and GMOs are safe, wholesome and beyond reproach.Based on documents that U.S. Right to Know obtained through the FOIA, two-time Pulitzer Prize winner Eric Lipton wrote a <a href="http://nader.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=c5cfd22327c3214afb5955d02&id=b2f472be44&e=8e411e9705" target="_blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">front page New York Times article</a> about how Monsanto and the agrichemical industry use publically-funded scientists to lobby and to promote its messages and products. For example, Lipton reported on a $25,000 grant from Monsanto to University of Florida Professor Kevin Folta, who had repeatedly denied having ties to Monsanto: “‘This is a great 3rd-party approach to developing the advocacy that we’re looking to develop,’ Michael Lohuis, the director of crop biometrics at Monsanto, wrote last year in an email as the company considered giving Dr. Folta an unrestricted grant.”One thing is clear; food safety, public health, the commercialization of public universities, corporate control of science and the research produced by taxpayer-funded scientists to promote commercial products are all appropriate subjects for FOIA requests.The use of the FOIA by citizens, journalists and others to expose scandals is essential to ensure honest scientific inquiry and is critical to developing protective public health and environmental standards. Scientific research should not be contaminated by the inevitable biases and secrecy that come with corporate contracts at public universities.The FOIA is a valuable tool to help citizens uncover corruption and wrongdoing and to vindicate our right to know what our own governments are doing.

<p style="margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: MerriweatherLight, 'Lucida Bright', Georgia, serif; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 28px; font-size: 16px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(26, 26, 26); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Special interests are increasingly using broad open records requests to intimidate scientists, and researchers and universities need to be prepared to respond to these demands, according to a <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/center-science-and-democracy/protecting-scientists-harassment/freedom-bully-how-laws#.VQCb_tLF98E" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(214, 123, 15); text-decoration: none; -webkit-transition: color 0.5s linear; transition: color 0.5s linear; background: 0px 0px;">new report</a> that comes as the debate over transparency <a href="http://fromtheprow.agu.org/blog/protecting-academic-freedom-holding-accountable/" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(214, 123, 15); text-decoration: none; -webkit-transition: color 0.5s linear; transition: color 0.5s linear; background: 0px 0px;">heats up in Congress</a>.<p style="margin: 10px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: MerriweatherLight, 'Lucida Bright', Georgia, serif; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 28px; font-size: 16px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(26, 26, 26); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The report, “Freedom to Bully: How Laws Intended to Free Information Are Used to Harass Researchers,” issued by the <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/center-science-and-democracy/protecting-scientists-harassment/freedom-bully-how-laws" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(214, 123, 15); text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.5s linear; -webkit-transition: color 0.5s linear; background: 0px 0px;">Union of Concerned Scientists</a> (UCS), finds that the practice of using open records requests to intimidate scientists emerged with the growing use of electronic communication over the past 2 decades.<p style="margin: 10px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: MerriweatherLight, 'Lucida Bright', Georgia, serif; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 28px; font-size: 16px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(26, 26, 26); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The practice roughly follows a pattern: Individuals, companies, organizations, activists, and other special interests across the political spectrum utilize states’ <a href="http://www.nfoic.org/state-freedom-of-information-laws" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(214, 123, 15); text-decoration: none; -webkit-transition: color 0.5s linear; transition: color 0.5s linear; background: 0px 0px;">freedom of information laws</a> to make broad requests for materials on topics that they disagree with to “attack and harass scientists and other researchers and shut down conversation at public universities,” according to the report.<p style="margin: 10px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: MerriweatherLight, 'Lucida Bright', Georgia, serif; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 28px; font-size: 16px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(26, 26, 26); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">In many cases, these groups request all materials on a topic in a university’s or researcher’s possession, including emails, draft papers, and handwritten notes. Researchers and universities are often unprepared to respond to these requests, the report notes.<p style="margin: 10px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: MerriweatherLight, 'Lucida Bright', Georgia, serif; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 28px; font-size: 16px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(26, 26, 26);">“This strategy can curb the ability of researchers to pursue their work, chill their speech and discourage them from tackling contentious topics,” the report states. The report was released 13 February at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), held in San Jose, Calif.<h3 style="margin: 0.5em 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: ProximaNovaCondensedSemibold, 'Arial Narrow', Arial, sans-serif; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.2; font-size: 2.5rem; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(34, 34, 34); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: MerriweatherBold, 'Lucida Bright', Georgia, serif; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; font-size: 25px; vertical-align: baseline;">Flare-Ups over Funding Sources</h3><p style="margin: 10px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: MerriweatherLight, 'Lucida Bright', Georgia, serif; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 28px; font-size: 16px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(26, 26, 26); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The report provided prescient context for groups, including the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society, and UCS, which <a href="http://www.ametsoc.org/sss/letter_on_challenges_to_academic_freedom_Feb15.pdf" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(214, 123, 15); text-decoration: none; -webkit-transition: color 0.5s linear; transition: color 0.5s linear; background: 0px 0px;">expressed concern</a> over a <a href="http://democrats.naturalresources.house.gov/documents/letters-seven-universities-asking-documents-climate-change-research" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(214, 123, 15); text-decoration: none; -webkit-transition: color 0.5s linear; transition: color 0.5s linear; background: 0px 0px;">series of letters</a> dated 24 February written by Rep. <a href="http://grijalva.house.gov/" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(214, 123, 15); text-decoration: none; -webkit-transition: color 0.5s linear; transition: color 0.5s linear; background: 0px 0px;">Raul Grijalva</a> (D-Ariz.) asking scientists known to be climate change deniers for information on their funding sources as well as drafts and communications about their testimonies before Congress. Grijalva, the ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, wrote the letters after news reports disclosed the funding sources of Wei-Hock “Willie” Soon, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(214, 123, 15); text-decoration: none; -webkit-transition: color 0.5s linear; transition: color 0.5s linear; background: 0px 0px;">a frequent critic</a> of research linking human actions to climate change.<p style="margin: 10px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: MerriweatherLight, 'Lucida Bright', Georgia, serif; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 28px; font-size: 16px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(26, 26, 26); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The groups said that asking for unpublished communications impinges on scientists’ academic freedom. Grijalva has <a href="http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/grijalva-climate-letters-went-too-far-in-seeking-correspondence-20150302" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(214, 123, 15); text-decoration: none; -webkit-transition: color 0.5s linear; transition: color 0.5s linear; background: 0px 0px;">since said</a> his request seeking the records of correspondence likely went too far, but the issue has put a spotlight on the debate about transparency and disclosure.<p style="margin: 10px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: MerriweatherLight, 'Lucida Bright', Georgia, serif; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 28px; font-size: 16px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(26, 26, 26); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">“There is a growing need for academic societies, public interest organizations, journalists, the National Academies, industry and other stakeholders to come up with common disclosure standards that balance the public’s interest in transparency with the public’s interest in reasonable privacy and the ability of researchers to do their best work,” Michael Halpern, program manager at the Center for Science and Democracy at UCS, wrote in a <a href="http://blog.ucsusa.org/rep-grijalvas-requests-and-the-real-problem-with-conflict-of-interest-disclosure-643" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(214, 123, 15); text-decoration: none; -webkit-transition: color 0.5s linear; transition: color 0.5s linear; background: 0px 0px;">blog post</a>.<h3 style="margin: 0.5em 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: ProximaNovaCondensedSemibold, 'Arial Narrow', Arial, sans-serif; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.2; font-size: 2.5rem; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(34, 34, 34); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: MerriweatherBold, 'Lucida Bright', Georgia, serif; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; font-size: 25px; vertical-align: baseline;">Quelling Science Through Freedom of Information Laws</h3><p style="margin: 10px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: MerriweatherLight, 'Lucida Bright', Georgia, serif; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 28px; font-size: 16px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(26, 26, 26); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Freedom of information laws allow citizens to request public records from government agencies and other taxpayer-funded institutions. These laws are intended to increase government transparency and accountability while also limiting access to sensitive information such as trade secrets and intelligence related to national security. State open records laws—which vary from state to state—can also be used to solicit information from government-funded scientists working at publicly funded universities.<p style="margin: 10px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: MerriweatherLight, 'Lucida Bright', Georgia, serif; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 28px; font-size: 16px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(26, 26, 26); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The new report finds that individuals, companies, and other groups have been using these state laws to make broad freedom of information requests to taxpayer-funded institutions and researchers asking for all information on a given topic or from a given person. These requests can include unpublished data, handwritten notes, telephone records, emails, and other information going back years and years. Complying with these requests not only is costly and time-consuming but also can discourage communication among scientists and harm researchers’ reputations, the report says.<p style="margin: 10px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: MerriweatherLight, 'Lucida Bright', Georgia, serif; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 28px; font-size: 16px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(26, 26, 26); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The report says that special interests use these broad requests to attack scientists or fields of study with which they disagree, such as climate change. In a now famous example, former Virginia attorney general Ken Cuccinelli used the state’s Fraud Against Taxpayers Act to <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/Virginia_Attorney_General_CID.pdf" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(214, 123, 15); text-decoration: none; -webkit-transition: color 0.5s linear; transition: color 0.5s linear; background: 0px 0px;">subpoena</a> all of climate scientist <a href="http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/index.php" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(214, 123, 15); text-decoration: none; -webkit-transition: color 0.5s linear; transition: color 0.5s linear; background: 0px 0px;">Michael Mann’s</a> correspondence from his time at the University of Virginia. The state supreme court eventually ruled that the university did not have to disclose records that could harm research efforts, damage faculty recruitment and retention, undermine faculty expectations of privacy and confidentiality, and impair free thought and expression.<p style="margin: 10px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: MerriweatherLight, 'Lucida Bright', Georgia, serif; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 28px; font-size: 16px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(26, 26, 26); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">“To be sure, open records requests are there to hold governments accountable. In general, the more transparent government is, the more officials are likely to serve the public interest and resist efforts to suppress, censor or otherwise unduly influence scientific research,” Halpern wrote in a <a href="http://blog.ucsusa.org/twenty-years-of-open-records-attacks-629" target="_blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(214, 123, 15); text-decoration: none; -webkit-transition: color 0.5s linear; transition: color 0.5s linear; background: 0px 0px;">blog post</a>. “But there’s an unexpected dark side to these laws that needs to be dealt with.”<p style="margin: 10px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: MerriweatherLight, 'Lucida Bright', Georgia, serif; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 28px; font-size: 16px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(26, 26, 26); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">“In short, activists and special interests from across the political spectrum are initiating broad and invasive open records requests for emails, handwritten notes, raw data, and anything else they can get their hands on,” he continued. “The practice can intimidate researchers and shut down speech.”<h3 style="margin: 0.5em 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: ProximaNovaCondensedSemibold, 'Arial Narrow', Arial, sans-serif; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.2; font-size: 2.5rem; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(34, 34, 34); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: MerriweatherBold, 'Lucida Bright', Georgia, serif; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; font-size: 25px; vertical-align: baseline;">What Can Scientists Do?</h3><p style="margin: 10px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: MerriweatherLight, 'Lucida Bright', Georgia, serif; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 28px; font-size: 16px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(26, 26, 26); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Halpern said that scientists and institutions need to be prepared to deal with these open records requests. Researchers should be aware of how their university handles open records requests. Institutions should clarify their policies in this area, including how they will respond to requests and which materials they consider public and which they consider private, the report suggests.<p style="margin: 10px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: MerriweatherLight, 'Lucida Bright', Georgia, serif; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 28px; font-size: 16px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(26, 26, 26); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Universities and researchers should also be aware of the context of a request and fulfill requests with full awareness of what disclosure will mean, Halpern said. In addition, researchers and professional societies need to recognize that what may be in the best interest of a university is not always in the best interest of an individual researcher, the report notes.<p style="margin: 10px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: MerriweatherLight, 'Lucida Bright', Georgia, serif; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 28px; font-size: 16px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(26, 26, 26); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Mann, who has come under other similar attacks in addition to the University of Virginia case, said that scientists cannot allow the abuse of open records requests to change the way they do their work, which includes communicating with colleagues over email.<p style="margin: 10px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: MerriweatherLight, 'Lucida Bright', Georgia, serif; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 28px; font-size: 16px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(26, 26, 26); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">“It is crucial that we prevail in this battle to protect academic freedom and the right of scientists to have frank and internal discussions with each other,” he said during a panel on the issue at the AAAS meeting. “If we fail in that battle, all of society loses out.”<p style="margin: 10px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: MerriweatherLight, 'Lucida Bright', Georgia, serif; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 28px; font-size: 16px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(26, 26, 26); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">—Nanci Bompey, Writer; email: <a href="mailto:nbompey@agu.org" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(214, 123, 15); text-decoration: none; -webkit-transition: color 0.5s linear; transition: color 0.5s linear; background: 0px 0px;">nbompey@agu.org</a><p style="margin: 10px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: MerriweatherLight, 'Lucida Bright', Georgia, serif; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 28px; font-size: 16px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(26, 26, 26); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: MerriweatherBold, 'Lucida Bright', Georgia, serif; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: 700; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">Citation: Bompey, N. (2015), Open records laws increasingly used to harass scientists, <em style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: MerriweatherLightItalic, 'Lucida Bright', Georgia, serif; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: border-box;">Eos, 96,doi:10.1029/2015EO026413. Published on 18 March 2015.<a href="https://eos.org/articles/open-records-laws-increasingly-used-to-harass-scientists">https://eos.org/articles/open-records-laws-increasingly-used-to-harass-scientists</a>==

E&E AZ

On March 24, after years of litigation, the Arizona Superior Court, Pima County, ruled in favor of the University of Arizona and its efforts to protect climate scientists’ correspondence and prepublication work.<a id="ftnref1" href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn1" name="ftnref1" style=" color: rgb(161, 92, 31); padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[1]</a>  In particular, in Energy & Environment Legal Institute v. Arizona Board of Regents, et al., the court upheld the University’s decision to deny large portions of open records requests by Energy & Environment Legal (known as E&E, and formerly named the American Tradition Institute or ATI), a group that has repeatedly sought to use open records laws to access troves of researchers’ private files.<a id="ftnref2" href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn2" name="ftnref2" style=" color: rgb(161, 92, 31); padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[2]</a>  E&E has been described as having “a core mission of discrediting climate science and dismantling environmental regulations” in part through “filing nuisance suits to disrupt important academic research,” and the group has been linked to the fossil fuel industry, “major conservative players,” and “organizations opposing action on climate change.”<a id="ftnref3" href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn3" name="_ftnref3" style=" color: rgb(161, 92, 31); padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[3]</a>

State and federal open records laws promote government transparency by allowing citizens to request administrative records, with exemptions for national security, trade secrets, and similar issues.  But open records laws have also become common tools of those seeking to harass scientists,<a id="ftnref4" href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn4" name="_ftnref4" style=" color: rgb(161, 92, 31); padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[4]</a> and open records requests for large swaths of documents (including private emails) have been made on scientists employed by the government or public universities, or who otherwise receive public funding.  The scientists must then review and produce potentially thousands of documents – sometimes in a matter of days, depending on the applicable laws – or marshal a legal response explaining why the requests are invalid.

In the Arizona case, E&E filed multiple requests under Arizona’s open records laws for the files of University of Arizona climate scientists Dr. Malcolm Hughes and Dr. Jonathan Overpeck, seeking thirteen years of documents – including emails dating back to the 90s.  (E&E has also unsuccessfully gone after Dr. Michael Mann’s emails in Virginia,<a id="ftnref5" href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn5" name="ftnref5" style=" color: rgb(161, 92, 31); padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[5]</a> as well as many others.<a id="ftnref6" href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn6" name="ftnref6" style=" color: rgb(161, 92, 31); padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[6]</a>)  The University of Arizona produced some documents but denied release of several thousand others.<a id="ftnref7" href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn7" name="ftnref7" style=" color: rgb(161, 92, 31); padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[7]</a>  The University stated the withheld documents contained protected intellectual property, including trade secrets and prepublication data and drafts; it also applied Arizona’s general records exemption that it was “in the best interests of the state” to withhold the documents.<a id="ftnref8" href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn8" name="ftnref8" style=" color: rgb(161, 92, 31); padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[8]</a>  The University argued that releasing the scientists’ files would undermine academic collaboration and chill researcher correspondence – particularly between publicly funded scientists and privately funded ones, who are not at risk of such disclosure.  This in turn would harm the scientific process and reduce the competitiveness of Arizona’s public universities, as researchers would become more reluctant to work at Arizona public universities or with public university scientists.<a id="ftnref9" href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn9" name="_ftnref9" style=" color: rgb(161, 92, 31); padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[9]</a>

E&E contested this decision and initiated litigation.  In its Amended Complaint, E&E stated it was conducting a “transparency project,” which it claimed was necessitated in large part by its interpretation of emails released in the so-called “Climategate” hacking.<a id="ftnref10" href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn10" name="ftnref10" style=" color: rgb(161, 92, 31); padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[10]</a>  In particular, E&E claimed that certain hacked emails involving the University of Arizona scientists and others indicated misdeeds worthy of further scrutiny,<a id="ftnref11" href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn11" name="ftnref11" style=" color: rgb(161, 92, 31); padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[11]</a> ignoring that all official investigations related to “Climategate” had shown no misconduct.<a id="ftnref12" href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn12" name="ftnref12" style=" color: rgb(161, 92, 31); padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[12]</a>  E&E also claimed any fear that releasing emails would “chill the creative efforts of faculty” was “unfounded” and it asserted instead that protecting researcher records actually “encourages and rewards misbehavior.”<a id="ftnref13" href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn13" name="ftnref13" style=" color: rgb(161, 92, 31); padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[13]</a>  E&E also acknowledged its requests sought, in part, documents that “embarrass both Professors Hughes and Overpeck and the University.”<a id="ftnref14" href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn14" name="_ftnref14" style=" color: rgb(161, 92, 31); padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[14]</a>

The University of Arizona countered that protecting research correspondence and pre-publication work “is necessary to ensure Arizona’s great public universities continue their traditions of excellence in research and scholarship….  E&E’s claim threatens to rupture ordinary and customary expectations of academic confidentiality, and a ruling in favor of E&E will inevitably harm Arizona’s public universities and the scholars working in them.”<a id="ftnref15" href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn15" name="ftnref15" style=" color: rgb(161, 92, 31); padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[15]</a>  The University also stated that E&E was seeking “to attack [researchers’] science, criticize their interactions with each other and publicly assault how they speak about or defend themselves against the increasingly small group of outliers who continue to deny man’s role in global climate change….  E&E request[s] that the Court help it police and control the conduct of climate scientists.”<a id="ftnref16" href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn16" name="ftnref16" style=" color: rgb(161, 92, 31); padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[16]</a>  The University argued that, ultimately, E&E’s “briefs and other public pronouncements reveal a plan to harass scientists whose views do not accord with those of E&E and its allies, or who simply do not play by the rules of etiquette E&E nominated itself to enforce.”<a id="ftnref17" href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn17" name="_ftnref17" style=" color: rgb(161, 92, 31); padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[17]</a>

In its March 24 decision, the Pima County Court analyzed whether the University of Arizona had committed an abuse of discretion in denying E&E’s records requests, and it sided with the University.  The court found that the University could properly protect “prepublication critical analysis, unpublished data, analysis, research, results, drafts, and commentary” as well as prepublication peer review work because the University was justified in concluding that, as is prohibited by Arizona law, “release of [the] information would have an important and harmful effect on the duties of a State agency or officer.”<a id="ftnref18" href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn18" name="ftnref18" style=" color: rgb(161, 92, 31); padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[18]</a>  The court also noted that the “volume and complexity of the records at issue is daunting,” and the court acknowledged that it spent “[m]any hours” of its own reviewing 90 “technical and esoteric” sample emails – a small fraction compared to the other 1700+ withheld emails – with “at least one [sample email] exceeding 800 pages in length.”<a id="ftnref19" href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn19" name="ftnref19" style=" color: rgb(161, 92, 31); padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[19]</a>

Despite losing in court, E&E was still able to create considerable damage through this litigation:  the scientists had to pull and go through their records from the late 90s on, including hundreds of thousands of pages of emails and attachments.<a id="ftnref20" href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn20" name="ftnref20" style=" color: rgb(161, 92, 31); padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[20]</a>  Dr. Hughes said it took him over ten weeks to go through the massive number of documents E&E was seeking, taking him away from his research for a full summer (the time that he would normally use to focus on his research because he teaches during the academic year).<a id="ftnref21" href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn21" name="ftnref21" style=" color: rgb(161, 92, 31); padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[21]</a>  The University and the public court system also spent a substantial amount of time and money during the years of litigation.

Nonetheless, this recent Arizona decision is a significant victory.  Combined with the 2014 Virginia Supreme Court decision in Dr. Mann’s case – which held that releasing faculty files could cause “harm to university-wide research efforts, damage to faculty recruitment and retention, undermining of faculty expectations of privacy and confidentiality and impairment of free thought and expression”<a id="ftnref22" href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn22" name="ftnref22" style=" color: rgb(161, 92, 31); padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[22]</a> – the decision bolsters the consensus among courts that abusive records requests are not a permissible use of open records laws and only harm the scientific endeavor.  Unfortunately, this growing consensus has not yet stopped groups like E&E, which is committed to “peppering universities around the country” with open records requests<a id="ftnref23" href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn23" name="ftnref23" style=" color: rgb(161, 92, 31); padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[23]</a> – including another one dated February 27, 2015, seeking additional records concerning the same two University of Arizona scientists.<a id="ftnref24" href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftn24" name="_ftnref24" style=" color: rgb(161, 92, 31); padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[24]</a>

For more information on attacks on scientists, please visit <a href="http://climatesciencedefensefund.org/" onclick="gaq.push(['trackEvent', 'outbound-article', 'http://climatesciencedefensefund.org', 'http://climatesciencedefensefund.org']);" style=" color: rgb(161, 92, 31); padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">http://climatesciencedefensefund.org</a>

Lauren Kurtz is the Executive Director of the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, which previously assisted with the representation of Dr. Mann in his Virginia open records litigation.

<a id="ftn1" href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref1" name="_ftn1" style=" color: rgb(161, 92, 31); padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[1]</a> https://s3.amazonaws.com/ucs-documents/science-and-democracy/19966054.pdf

<a id="ftn2" href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref2" name="_ftn2" style=" color: rgb(161, 92, 31); padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[2]</a> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-cope-when-activists-ask-for-climate-scientists-personal-emails/

<a id="ftn3" href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref3" name="_ftn3" style=" color: rgb(161, 92, 31); padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[3]</a> http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/may/09/climate-change-american-tradition-insitute

<a id="ftn4" href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref4" name="_ftn4" style=" color: rgb(161, 92, 31); padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[4]</a> http://www.ucsusa.org/center-science-and-democracy/protecting-scientists-harassment/freedom-bully-how-laws#.VRdv7Eu0HKE

<a id="ftn5" href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref5" name="_ftn5" style=" color: rgb(161, 92, 31); padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[5]</a> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/local/wp/2014/04/17/va-supreme-court-rules-for-u-va-in-global-warming-foia-case/

<a id="ftn6" href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref6" name="_ftn6" style=" color: rgb(161, 92, 31); padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[6]</a> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-cope-when-activists-ask-for-climate-scientists-personal-emails/

<a id="ftn7" href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref7" name="_ftn7" style=" color: rgb(161, 92, 31); padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[7]</a> Petitioners’ Opening Brief dated June 26, 2014.  Cited court filings are available from the author upon request.  See also Amended Complaint dated October 9, 2013.

<a id="ftn8" href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref8" name="_ftn8" style=" color: rgb(161, 92, 31); padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[8]</a> Letter from the University of Arizona to ATI (now known as E&E) dated February 5, 2013.

<a id="ftn9" href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref9" name="_ftn9" style=" color: rgb(161, 92, 31); padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[9]</a> Respondents’ Opening Memorandum dated July 31, 2014.

<a id="ftn10" href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref10" name="_ftn10" style=" color: rgb(161, 92, 31); padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[10]</a> http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html#.VRiv1ku0HKF

<a id="ftn11" href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref11" name="_ftn11" style=" color: rgb(161, 92, 31); padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[11]</a> Amended Complaint dated October 9, 2013.

<a id="ftn12" href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref12" name="_ftn12" style=" color: rgb(161, 92, 31); padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[12]</a> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/uk-police-close-climategate/

<a id="ftn13" href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref13" name="_ftn13" style=" color: rgb(161, 92, 31); padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[13]</a> Petitioners’ Opening Brief dated June 26, 2014.

<a id="ftn14" href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref14" name="_ftn14" style=" color: rgb(161, 92, 31); padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[14]</a> Petitioners’ Opening Brief dated June 26, 2014.

<a id="ftn15" href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref15" name="_ftn15" style=" color: rgb(161, 92, 31); padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[15]</a> Respondents’ Opening Memorandum dated July 31, 2014.

<a id="ftn16" href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref16" name="_ftn16" style=" color: rgb(161, 92, 31); padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[16]</a> Respondents’ Final Reply dated September 19, 2014.

<a id="ftn17" href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref17" name="_ftn17" style=" color: rgb(161, 92, 31); padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[17]</a> Respondents’ Final Reply dated September 19, 2014.

<a id="ftn18" href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref18" name="_ftn18" style=" color: rgb(161, 92, 31); padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[18]</a> https://s3.amazonaws.com/ucs-documents/science-and-democracy/19966054.pdf

<a id="ftn19" href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref19" name="_ftn19" style=" color: rgb(161, 92, 31); padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[19]</a> https://s3.amazonaws.com/ucs-documents/science-and-democracy/19966054.pdf

<a id="ftn20" href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref20" name="_ftn20" style=" color: rgb(161, 92, 31); padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[20]</a> Respondents’ Opening Memorandum dated July 31, 2014.

<a id="ftn21" href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref21" name="_ftn21" style=" color: rgb(161, 92, 31); padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[21]</a> Conversation with author.

<a id="ftn22" href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref22" name="_ftn22" style=" color: rgb(161, 92, 31); padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[22]</a> http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opnscvwp/1130934.pdf

<a id="ftn23" href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref23" name="_ftn23" style=" color: rgb(161, 92, 31); padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[23]</a> http://eelegal.org/?p=2958

<a id="ftn24" href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#ftnref24" name="_ftn24" style=" color: rgb(161, 92, 31); padding: 1px; text-decoration: none;">[24]</a> http://eelegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/EELI-FME-Law-AORA-Research-Funding-Conflicts-request-U-of-A.pdf

<span style=" color: rgb(77, 77, 77); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: center; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 1; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; display: inline !important; float: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">- See more at: <a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#sthash.nICaxo1Y.dpuf">http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#sthash.nICaxo1Y.dpuf</a>

==