Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
69 F. Supp. 3d 115
D.D.C.2014Background
- CREW requested VA records in May 2008 after a Dr. Norma Perez e-mail about PTSD diagnoses was leaked and drew congressional scrutiny.
- VA denied the request as overly broad and CREW appealed; VA later released several documents but maintained search adequacy issues.
- CREW alleged the VA’s search did not reach back to early 2008 and relied on backups that were not recoverable, suggesting destruction of responsive records.
- The court previously found conduct problematic, allowed limited discovery, and ordered depositions related to backup-tape handling and document destruction.
- In 2012–2014 the VA renewed its summary judgment motion supported by multiple declarations; CREW sought further discovery and challenges to the search and disclosures.
- The court grants summary judgment for the VA, denies reconsideration as moot, and orders a show-cause proceeding on sanctions for potential misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether VA's search was adequate under FOIA | CREW asserts searches were insufficient and incomplete. | VA shows a good-faith, reasonably comprehensive search across multiple offices with detailed declarations. | Yes; search deemed adequate and reasonably calculated to uncover responsive records. |
| Whether post-collection disclosures and deposition conduct indicate bad faith | CREW claims late/discrepant disclosures and withholding evidence show bad faith. | Declarations are credible; delay alone does not prove bad faith; no substantial withholding shown. | No; no finding of bad faith sufficient to rebut the declarations; sanctions considered separately. |
| Whether there should be sanctions for potential multiplicitous proceedings | CREW incurred extra costs due to VA's litigation tactics. | No further sanctions without clear misconduct showing. | Court will order VA to show cause why sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 should not be entered. |
| Whether the absence of certain emails indicates destruction or nonexistence | Missing March/April 2008 Perez emails suggest deliberate deletion. | Emails were produced (located in recipient inboxes) and no evidence of intentional deletion. | No; destruction argument rejected; documents were recoverable and produced. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ancient Coin Collectors Guild v. U.S. Dept. of State, 641 F.3d 504 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (adequacy of search assessed by reasonableness, not exhaustiveness)
- Iturralde v. Comptroller of Currency, 315 F.3d 311 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (failure to locate a document does not alone render search inadequate)
- SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. S.E.C., 926 F.2d 119 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (affidavits must be detailed and non-conclusory to support nondisclosure)
- Oglesby v. U.S. Dept. of the Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (good-faith search standard; not every document must be found)
- Perry v. Block, 684 F.2d 121 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (FOIA search reasonableness and scope principles)