Huntington v. United States Department of Commerce
266 F. Supp. 3d 264
D.D.C.2017Background
- Plaintiff Mark Huntington submitted FOIA requests to the USPTO seeking records related to the SAWS (Special Assignment of Work Shared) program; litigation followed over the adequacy of the USPTO’s search and a withheld document.
- The Court previously found the USPTO’s initial search description facially deficient and ordered further detail and a search of PTAB Chief Judges’ records.
- The USPTO supplemented its declarations (Heaton) describing searches across Technology Centers (TCs), OPLA, Office of Patent Training, Deputy Commissioner/Commissioner offices, and PTAB personnel; it also searched former Chief Judges’ preserved files where available.
- Huntington contends searches remain inadequate (esp. that more APJs/TC employees should have searched and doubts about email archiving) and seeks release or segregable redactions of a withheld SAWS filing-date list.
- The USPTO defends its targeted searches, explains email retention (Office 365, PSTs, backups), and argues the withheld filing-date document cannot be meaningfully redacted without revealing which applications were flagged for SAWS.
- The Court concludes the USPTO cured its prior deficiencies as to search description and many searches, orders further compliance on APJ records or a more detailed declaration, and upholds the Exemption 5 withholding of the filing-date document.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of USPTO search description | Heaton’s initial declarations lack requisite specificity; court-ordered detail still insufficient for some offices | USPTO provided supplemental declarations specifying who searched which laptops, emails, and paper files; identified rationale for chosen searchers | Court: Supplemental declarations largely cure facial deficiency; search description now adequate |
| Scope of searches in Technology Centers (TCs) | All TC employees or all SPEs should have searched; few responsive emails suggests incomplete search | USPTO identified specific TC Directors and SAWS POCs reasonably likely to have responsive records; presumption of good faith applies | Court: USPTO’s targeted TC searches adequate; plaintiff’s speculation insufficient to rebut agency affidavits |
| Search of PTAB APJ records | Court’s prior order required searches beyond Chief Judges — APJs generally should be searched | USPTO searched Chief Judges (and some APJs); contends no basis to believe other APJs likely to have responsive records | Court: USPTO must either detail which APJs searched and why others were excluded or search all APJs and report results; further briefing ordered |
| Withholding under FOIA Exemption 5 (filing-date list) | USPTO should release segregable, redacted non-exempt portions or provide derivatives (week instead of date) | Releasing or redacting filing dates would permit matching to public records and identify SAWS-flagged applications; redaction would leave revealing gaps | Court: Withholding proper under Exemption 5; segregability/redaction proposals would still reveal exempt information and are denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (assessing genuine disputes based on evidence)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (movant’s burden on summary judgment)
- Sample v. Bureau of Prisons, 466 F.3d 1086 (construing evidence for non-moving party)
- Brayton v. Office of U.S. Trade Rep., 641 F.3d 521 (FOIA suits often resolved on summary judgment)
- Larson v. Dep’t of State, 565 F.3d 857 (agency affidavits can sustain summary judgment in FOIA if sufficiently specific)
- DOJ v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (FOIA burden and de novo review)
- Valencia-Lucena v. Coast Guard, 180 F.3d 321 (agency must show search reasonably calculated to locate responsive records)
- Truitt v. Dep’t of State, 897 F.2d 540 (search adequacy standard)
- Oglesby v. U.S. Dep’t of Army, 920 F.2d 57 (requirement of reasonably detailed affidavits)
- Bonaparte v. DOJ, 531 F. Supp. 2d 118 (insufficient search where agency failed to attest it searched all likely files)
- Maydak v. DOJ, 362 F. Supp. 2d 316 (similar search-attestation requirement)
- Bartko v. DOJ, 167 F. Supp. 3d 64 (attestation language ‘‘magic words’’ re: searching all likely locations)
- SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (presumption of agency good faith vs. speculation)
- Ground Saucer Watch, Inc. v. CIA, 692 F.2d 770 (speculation insufficient to rebut agency affidavits)
- Perry v. Block, 684 F.2d 121 (requisite detail for search descriptions)
- Kissinger v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136 (FOIA does not require agencies to create records)
- Mead Data Cent., Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Air Force, 566 F.2d 242 (inextricably intertwined non-exempt and exempt information)