Search this term and you get two things: the Justice Department’s own guidance, and job postings for FOIA analysts. No vendor is offering it, which is strange, because at volume it is a structured data problem.
A Vaughn index is the document-by-document justification an agency files when it defends withholding in FOIA litigation. The name comes from Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 977 (1974).
Building one for forty documents is a drafting exercise. Building one for nine thousand is a data exercise, and that is where it goes wrong.
What the index has to do
Courts have described the required elements as: identify each document withheld, state the statutory exemption claimed, and explain how disclosure would damage the interests protected by the claimed exemption — see Citizens Commission on Human Rights v. FDA, 45 F.3d 1325 (9th Cir. 1995).
The description must be sufficiently specific to permit a reasoned judgment as to whether the material is actually exempt under FOIA, per Founding Church of Scientology v. Bell, 603 F.2d 945 (D.C. Cir. 1979). The purpose is to let the court make a rational decision about whether the material must be produced, as put in King v. Department of Justice, 830 F.2d 210 (D.C. Cir. 1987).
Form matters less than people assume
Courts have looked to whether an index functions rather than how it is laid out — see Jones v. FBI, 41 F.3d 238 (6th Cir. 1994) and Gallant v. NLRB, 26 F.3d 168 (D.C. Cir. 1994). Length and elegance have not been given weight; see Judicial Watch, Inc. v. United States Postal Service, 297 F. Supp. 2d 252 (D.D.C. 2004) and Landmark Legal Foundation v. IRS, 267 F.3d 1132 (D.C. Cir. 2001).
What courts have done, repeatedly, is order a more detailed index when the first one was not specific enough. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. DHS, 648 F. Supp. 2d 152 (D.D.C. 2009), Defenders of Wildlife v. United States Border Patrol, 623 F. Supp. 2d 83 (D.D.C. 2009), Schoenman v. FBI, 604 F. Supp. 2d 174 (D.D.C. 2009) and McGehee v. Department of Justice, 800 F. Supp. 2d 220 (D.D.C. 2011) are among the examples.
Doing it twice is the expensive outcome, and it is usually a consistency failure rather than a drafting failure.
The coded index, which is the practical answer at volume
Some agencies use a coded Vaughn index: withholdings are grouped into categories, each with its own justification, and each document is marked with the codes that apply to it. The practice appears in cases including Hodge v. FBI, 764 F. Supp. 2d 134 (D.D.C. 2011) and Blackwell v. FBI, 680 F. Supp. 2d 79 (D.D.C. 2010).
That structure is why this work fits a litigation support vendor. A coded index is a controlled vocabulary applied consistently across a population, reconciled against what was actually redacted on the page. It is the same discipline as a categorical privilege log, and it fails in the same ways — a code applied inconsistently across tranches, an entry that does not match the redaction on the document, a document in the index that was never withheld.
What we build and what we do not
We build the structure and the per-document entries, derived from the redaction log rather than retyped from the documents. We reconcile every entry against the actual redactions on the released pages. We check that the index and the production agree on Bates ranges, document counts and exemption codes. We deliver it in the format counsel wants to file.
We do not make the exemption calls or write the harm justifications. Those are agency counsel’s, exactly as privilege determinations stay with counsel on the litigation side. The narrative for each category comes from counsel; we apply it consistently and make the arithmetic hold.
Why it pairs with the redaction work
An index built from a redaction log that was kept during the redaction pass is a different project from an index reconstructed afterwards. The second one means re-examining every withheld document to work out what was taken and why, which is most of the original cost again.
So the log is the deliverable that matters, and it should be designed at the start of the release rather than at the start of the litigation.
What we do
Pro-Legal Services, Inc. provides Vaughn index support to agency counsel and the firms representing them — coded or document-by-document structure, entries built from the redaction log, full reconciliation against the production, and delivery in filing format.
From Arlington, Virginia. Small business, minority-owned, SAM registered, prime or subcontractor.
Related: FOIA redaction services, FOIA response document processing, redaction log preparation, categorical privilege log, public records redaction, litigation support for government agencies, defensible production services.
Pro-Legal Services, Inc. supports agency counsel from Arlington, Virginia, minutes from the District of Columbia and the District Court, and remotely for agencies nationwide.
Facing an index across thousands of documents? Send us the redaction log and the production. If there is no log, tell us now rather than later. Pro-Legal Services, Inc. · 1550 Wilson Blvd, Suite 250, Arlington, VA 22209 · 202-955-9400 · info@pro-legal.com