Earle v. United States Department of Justice
217 F. Supp. 3d 117
| D.D.C. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Vernon Earle filed a FOIA request with DOJ’s Tax Division seeking a “grand jury tax number” for D.C. Superior Court felony case F-4396-85 (dismissed in grand jury phase in 1986).
- EOUSA responded that grand jury material is exempt; OIP affirmed but stated the Department does not maintain any records of a grand jury tax number and that such tax numbers have never existed within DOJ.
- DOJ submitted a declaration by David Luczynski describing searches and consultations (including with the U.S. Attorney’s Office Superior Court Division chief and OIP attorney-advisor) concluding grand jury tax numbers do not exist and no records are maintained.
- Earle opposed, offering an affidavit stating a jailhouse lawyer told him indictments must be assigned a tax number by the Tax Division.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or, alternatively, for summary judgment on the ground that no responsive agency records exist and a search would be futile.
- The Court concluded that even if it had jurisdiction to review, DOJ’s detailed, good-faith declarations establish that the requested records do not exist and that the jailhouse-lawyer hearsay does not create a genuine dispute of material fact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction under FOIA | FOIA claim should be reviewable; OIP decision should be judicially reviewed | No jurisdiction if no agency records exist or were withheld | Court assumed jurisdiction arguendo but found dismissal appropriate because no agency records exist |
| Adequacy/futility of search under FOIA | Agency should search; plaintiff’s hearsay suggests records exist | DOJ’s declarations and inquiries show no ‘grand jury tax numbers’ or record system — search would be futile | DOJ’s detailed, nonconclusory declarations suffice; no search required; summary judgment for defendants |
| Proper defendant under FOIA | Sued U.S. Attorney for D.C. as defendant | FOIA suits lie only against federal agencies (DOJ proper defendant) | Suit against U.S. Attorney dismissed; DOJ is proper FOIA defendant |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing and burden to establish jurisdiction)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375 (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
- Kissinger v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136 (elements required to establish FOIA jurisdiction)
- Forsham v. Harris, 445 U.S. 169 (records must be created or obtained by agency to be agency records)
- Oglesby v. U.S. Dep’t of the Army, 920 F.2d 57 (agency must make good-faith search using reasonable methods)
- SafeCard Services, Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (agency affidavits entitled to presumption of good faith; speculative allegations insufficient)
- Ground Saucer Watch, Inc. v. CIA, 692 F.2d 770 (hearsay/speculation cannot rebut agency declarations)
- Sweetland v. Walters, 60 F.3d 852 (distinguishing jurisdictional dismissal from merits dismissal in FOIA context)