Beltranena v. Clinton
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27581
D.D.C.2011Background
- This is a Freedom of Information Act case filed by Beltranena against the Department of State (Secretary Clinton in official capacity).
- Beltranena sought all evidence related to the denial/revocation of his U.S. visa, requesting reasons and documents under FOIA.
- The Department conducted searches across Central Foreign Policy Records, Office of Visa Services, and the U.S. Embassy in Guatemala, and disclosed some materials with exemptions.
- The Department released some documents, withheld many in full, and indicated certain items were reviewed by another agency (DEA) before final withholding.
- The court ordered production of a Vaughn Index and non-exempt material by Feb 12, 2010; later, the Department sought protective relief and the court stayed discovery.
- The court denied the Department’s partial/supplemental summary-judgment motions without prejudice and granted a protective order, requiring supplementation of searches and segregability analyses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of the search for responsive records | Beltranena argues searches were inadequate and not reasonably calculated to uncover all records. | Beltranena contends searches were reasonably calculated; Grafeld Declaration suffices. | Searches deemed inadequate; must be supplemented with detailed, document-by-document explanations. |
| Segregability and release of non-exempt material | Beltranena asserts Department failed to demonstrate adequate segregation for many documents. | Beltranena contends exemptions justified and some materials non-segregable; partial disclosures asserted. | Department failed to meet segregability burden for most documents; must release non-exempt portions or provide a detailed Vaughn declaration. |
| Discovery and in camera review | Beltranena seeks limited discovery or in camera review of responsive documents. | FOIA discovery and in camera review are disfavored; agency affidavits should suffice. | Discovery denied and no in camera review; agency must supplement affidavits and searches; protective order granted pending renewed summary judgment with proper declarations. |
| Attorneys' fees | Beltranena seeks fees as a substantially prevailing party under 5 U.S.C. § 552. | Fees premature absent final judgment. | Fees request deemed premature at this stage. |
Key Cases Cited
- U.S. Dept. of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (1989) (FOIA disclosure priority; exemptions narrowly construed)
- Milner v. Department of the Navy, 131 S. Ct. 1259 (2011) (FOIA openness and broad disclosure)
- Department of the Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352 (1976) (purpose of FOIA to pierce secrecy and open agency action)
- Mead Data Cent., Inc. v. U.S. Department of the Air Force, 566 F.2d 242 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (segregability and non-exempt material must be released)
- Defenders of Wildlife v. U.S. Border Patrol, 623 F. Supp. 2d 83 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (detailed justification required for non-segregability)
- Wilderness Soc'y v. U.S. Department of the Interior, 344 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2004) (reasonableness standard for searches in FOIA)
- Perry v. Block, 684 F.2d 121 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (scope and method of agency searches; not epic detail required)