281 F.Supp.3d 144
D.D.C.2017Background
- Plaintiff American Center for Equitable Treatment submitted three FOIA requests (2016) to OMB seeking records about the Paperwork Reduction Act, OMB guidance, OMB review of Information Collection Requests (ICRs), petitions under 44 U.S.C. § 3517(b), and OMB’s interaction with certain PTO rules and ICRs.
- OMB routed searches to OIRA subject-matter staff and conducted centralized Boolean e‑mail searches of selected custodians, producing some documents (with Exemption 5 and 6 redactions) and withholding others in full.
- Plaintiff administratively appealed, arguing OMB’s search was inadequate in scope, locations, time periods, and choice of search terms; OMB performed supplemental searches and submitted declarations.
- After supplemental production, parties cross‑moved for summary judgment; the only remaining dispute was whether OMB’s search was adequate — specifically its temporal limits and choice of search terms.
- The court found OMB’s searches of locations and systems adequate but held OMB failed to justify (1) limiting searches to records on/after Jan. 20, 2009 for two requests where Plaintiff sought older records and (2) its refusal to use common/abbreviated search terms (e.g., "ICR," "Rule 111") without explanation.
- The court denied summary judgment to OMB on those points, granted it in other respects, and remanded for OMB either to run the requested searches or to explain why its scope and terms were reasonable; parties to advise court within 21 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Temporal scope: OMB limited searches to records from Jan. 20, 2009 (or June 1, 2012), excluding earlier years Plaintiff requested | OMB unreasonably excluded time periods (no date limit for item 4 of Req.1; back to 1995 for Req.3) and failed to justify limits | OMB relied on routine records disposition and transfers to NARA; searches targeted likely electronic custodians | Court: OMB must either expand searches to plaintiff's requested dates or explain with sufficient detail why earlier records are not reasonably searchable; denial of summary judgment as to temporal limits |
| Search terms: OMB used formal citations/phrases but not common abbreviations/vernacular (e.g., "ICR," "Rule 111," "MPEP") | Those ordinary terms are commonly used and likely to locate responsive records; OMB should have used them or explained why not | OMB says its chosen terms were reasonably tailored after consulting subject experts | Court: OMB’s declarations are conclusory; agency must run plaintiff’s suggested terms or provide a detailed explanation showing its terms were reasonably calculated to locate responsive records; denial of summary judgment as to terms |
Key Cases Cited
- United States Dep’t of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of Press, 489 U.S. 749 (agency bears burden to justify FOIA decisions)
- SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (agency affidavits can support summary judgment if detailed, non‑conclusory)
- Brayton v. Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, 641 F.3d 521 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (most FOIA cases resolved on summary judgment)
- McGehee v. CIA, 697 F.2d 1095 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (temporal limits on FOIA searches valid only if consistent with reasonable steps to locate documents)
- Oglesby v. United States Dep’t of Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (agency must show it searched files likely to contain responsive materials)
- Coffey v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 249 F. Supp. 3d 488 (D.D.C. 2017) (search terms must be reasonably calculated to uncover responsive records)
- James Madison Project v. Dep’t of State, 235 F. Supp. 3d 161 (D.D.C. 2017) (remand warranted when agency offers inadequate explanation for date restrictions)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (genuine disputes of material fact standard for summary judgment)
- Wiesner v. FBI, 577 F. Supp. 2d 450 (D.D.C. 2008) (rejecting conclusory agency declaration about sufficiency of search terms)
- Immigration Defense Project v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enf’t, 208 F. Supp. 3d 520 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (agency must explain why it did not use requester’s suggested search terms)
- Hall v. CIA, 668 F. Supp. 2d 172 (D.D.C. 2009) (remand for agency explanation regarding search terms)