277 F. Supp. 3d 1
D.D.C.2017Background
- Plaintiff Debbie Coffey, VP of Wild Horse Freedom Federation, submitted a FOIA request (Apr 27, 2015) seeking communications between BLM Wild Horse and Burro Program marketing/outreach staff and parties interested in buying/selling wild horses and burros, including proposed sale “proposals.”
- Coffey requested fee waiver; BLM denied the waiver, estimated $2,440 in fees, which Coffey paid; BLM produced ~671 pages on Sept. 30, 2015 and withheld portions of 240 pages under FOIA Exemption 6 (personal privacy).
- Coffey filed an administrative appeal (Nov. 9, 2015) and sued under FOIA after agency delays and incomplete production; both parties moved for summary judgment.
- Central dispute at summary judgment: adequacy of BLM’s search — whether BLM reasonably searched for responsive records, including (a) attachments and cross-referenced documents, (b) use of particular search terms (notably “proposal”), and (c) geographic/systems scope of searches beyond the WHBO in Washington, D.C.
- Court found BLM’s declarations deficient on follow-up searches for attachments/cross-referenced documents and on documenting searches of WHBO locations outside Washington, D.C.; court accepted BLM’s explanation for not using the literal term “proposal” and that broader terms were used.
- Court ordered BLM to supplement the record (additional searches and/or declarations) and held final ruling in abeyance; declined to rule on prevailing-party status pending supplementation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of follow-up searches for attachments / cross-referenced docs | Coffey: BLM produced emails that referenced attachments and other documents but did not produce those items; BLM had a duty to follow up | BLM: Not required to speculate or search beyond its reasonable search; it reviewed plaintiff’s examples and deemed them outside scope | Court: BLM’s supplemental declaration was conclusory; where produced records specifically reference attachments, agency must either produce them, show they’re exempt, show they don’t exist, or explain unresponsiveness; directed supplementation |
| Search terms — omission of the word "proposal" | Coffey: Request explicitly sought "proposals" and BLM should have searched that term | BLM: Few inquiries use the literal term “proposal”; broader search terms were used and were reasonably calculated to find responsive records | Court: Rejected Coffey’s challenge; BLM’s choice of broader terms was reasonable and not subject to micro-management |
| Geographic/systems scope of search (WHBO locations) | Coffey: Evidence suggests BLM limited search to Washington, D.C. office and omitted other locations/custodians | BLM: Searched all WHBO locations reasonably likely to contain responsive records, including outside Washington, D.C. | Court: BLM failed to describe which offices, custodians, and search methods were used for non-DC WHBO locations; ordered agency to fill the gap with more detail |
| Burden on agency to prove adequacy at summary judgment | Coffey: Agency must demonstrate beyond material doubt it conducted a reasonable search | BLM: Submitted declarations asserting searches were reasonably calculated | Held: Agency’s affidavits are presumptively valid but must be reasonably detailed and non-conclusory; here, deficiencies required supplementation before final ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Valencia-Lucena v. Coast Guard, 180 F.3d 321 (D.C. Cir.) (agency must show search reasonably calculated to uncover relevant documents)
- Truitt v. Dep’t of State, 897 F.2d 540 (D.C. Cir.) (reasonableness standard for agency searches)
- SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. S.E.C., 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir.) (affidavits must be relatively detailed and non-conclusory to support summary judgment)
- Iturralde v. Comptroller of Currency, 315 F.3d 311 (D.C. Cir.) (agency may meet burden with reasonably detailed affidavit describing search terms and files searched)
- Weisberg v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 705 F.2d 1344 (D.C. Cir.) (adequacy measured by reasonableness under circumstances)
- Hall v. C.I.A., 881 F. Supp. 2d 38 (D.D.C.) (when documents explicitly reference attachments, existence is not mere speculation)
- Am. Immigration Lawyers Ass’n v. Exec. Office for Immigration Review, 830 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir.) (treating related material as a unit for FOIA disclosure)
- DiBacco v. U.S. Army, 795 F.3d 178 (D.C. Cir.) (agency may limit search to locations likely to contain responsive documents)