Cunningham v. Holder
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16511
D.D.C.2012Background
- Cunningham, a federal prisoner, filed a FOIA suit seeking grand jury transcripts and related records from DOJ.
- DOJ located 57 pages of DOJ records (15 grand jury, 42 non-grand jury) and 33 pages of public records; transcripts withheld under Exemption 3, some non-grand jury redacted under Exemption 7(C) and the Privacy Act.
- Plaintiff narrowed his request to discovery material and grand jury testimony from specific witnesses and the prosecutor.
- Public records were identified but required a new, separate request and potential copying fees; DOJ advised such process and fees.
- EOUSA denied access to grand jury transcripts; OIP affirmed the EOUSA decision on appeal.
- Court grants summary judgment for defendants, finding proper withholding of grand jury transcripts and failure to exhaust administrative remedies for public records.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether grand jury transcripts were properly withheld under FOIA Exemption 3 | Cunningham argues FOIA entitles disclosure of grand jury transcripts. | Holder/DOJ rely on Rule 6(e) secrecy and Exemption 3 to withhold. | Grand jury transcripts properly withheld under Exemption 3 and Rule 6(e). |
| Whether the public records can be released and whether Cunningham exhausted administrative remedies | FOIA requires production of public records; no exhaustion issue discussed. | Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies and to pay fees or submit a new public-records request. | Exhaustion required; court dismisses on exhaustion grounds; public records not released. |
| Adequacy of DOJ/EOUSA search for responsive records | Not explicitly disputed; seeks broader production. | Search was adequate and reasonably calculated to uncover records. | Search deemed adequate; no genuine issue of material fact. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fund for Constitutional Gov't. v. Nat'l Archives & Records Serv., 656 F.2d 856 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (grand jury secrecy and exemptions framework under Exemption 3)
- Lopez v. Dep’t. of Justice, 393 F.3d 1345 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (Rule 6(e) secrecy bars disclosure; inner-workings protection)
- Dresser, Inc., 628 F.2d 1368 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (information before grand jury and other agency use distinctions)
- Truitt v. Dep’t of State, 897 F.2d 540 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (reasonableness standard for FOIA searches)
- Valencia-Lucena v. U.S. Coast Guard, 180 F.3d 321 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (guidance on adequacy and scope of searches)
- Oglesby v. United States Dep’t of the Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (exhaustion of administrative remedies in FOIA cases)
- Spannaus v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 824 F.2d 52 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (purpose of FOIA exhaustion and administrative remedies)
- Military Audit Project v. Casey, 656 F.2d 724 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (presumption of good faith in agency affidavits; need for contrary evidence)
- SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (deference to agency affidavits; not rebutted by mere speculation)