James v. United States Secret Service
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106158
| D.D.C. | 2011Background
- Plaintiff, a federal prisoner, files FOIA action seeking records related to his case and the Secret Service's investigation, challenging the agency's response and asserted destruction of records.
- In prior litigation, the Secret Service withheld all responsive records from a 2005 FOIA request under Exemptions 7(A) and 7(C), and the court found the search adequate and disclosures proper under those exemptions.
- A 2009 FOIA request sought four items (CDs, a cassette, and a video cassette) allegedly containing recordings from March 2002, which the Secret Service said were destroyed in 2007 under agency procedures.
- The agency released only redacted or non-responsive material, and plaintiff contends the recordings were wrongly destroyed and seeks access to the originals.
- The Special Agent in Charge and CFO personnel testified that the items were destroyed and the closed investigative file remains retained; the destruction is documented in agency declarations.
- The court treats the defendant’s motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment and concludes the agency conducted a reasonable search, the records do not exist, and FOIA requires disclosure only of records the agency actually retains.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the search reasonably calculated to uncover responsive records? | James contends the search was insufficient and misdescribed; more records should exist. | The Secret Service conducted a thorough search of evidence and custody records; declarations support adequacy of the search. | Yes; search deemed reasonable and adequate. |
| Does destruction of the requested recordings defeat FOIA liability? | Destroying the materials before the request violated retention and discovery obligations and Brady. | Records were destroyed in accordance with the Secret Service manual; destroyed materials no longer exist to disclose. | Yes; destruction does not defeat FOIA where no agency records exist to disclose. |
| Can the agency withhold information under Exemption 7(A) and 7(C) in this context? | Disclosure would reveal exculpatory or other sensitive information; exemp. 7 applies to ongoing investigations. | Exemptions 7(A) and 7(C) justified the prior withholding; the current case relies on destruction and lack of records. | Not central to the outcome; agency declarations suffice; court grants summary judgment on adequacy of search and destruction posture. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. James, 487 F.3d 518 (7th Cir. 2007) (affirmed related conviction context and disclosures in FOIA framing)
- United States v. Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. 136 (Supreme Court, 1989) (FOIA scope and agency records control; records must be in agency possession)
- Kissinger v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 445 S. Ct. 640 (U.S. 1980) (consent and confidentiality considerations in FOIA disclosures)
- National Labor Relations Bd. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132 (Supreme Court, 1975) (FOIA disclosure scope; destruction renders documents nonexistent)
- Weisberg v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 705 F.2d 1344 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (agency bears burden to show no genuine issue of material fact in FOIA summary judgment)
- Jones v. FBI, 41 F.3d 238 (6th Cir. 1994) (FOIA record accessibility and agency control considerations)
- Oglesby v. U.S. Dep’t of the Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (test for adequacy of search in FOIA cases)
- U.S. Dep’t of Justice v. Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. 136 (Supreme Court, 1989) (agency records and public access under FOIA)