Jimenez v. Executive Office for United States Attorneys
764 F. Supp. 2d 174
D.D.C.2011Background
- Jimenez sues EOUSA under FOIA and Privacy Act in the District of Columbia, seeking records related to a forged third superseding indictment and expungement claims.
- Plaintiff was indicted and convicted in SDNY in the 1990s; he alleges a forged third superseding indictment replacing the one recorded on the SDNY docket.
- FOIA Request No. 08-3341 sought the April 15, 1993, docket entry 128 superseding indictment; EOUSA searched its records and released 26 pages, after obtaining the document from the District Court.
- Plaintiff appealed; the DOJ OIP affirmed the response, finding the search adequate and that EOUSA complied with FOIA duties.
- FOIA Request No. 08-4421 sought expungement/authentication of the forged indictment; EOUSA treated as Privacy Act request and denied amendment; plaintiff litigates these issues in this action.
- Court grants summary judgment for EOUSA, holding searches were reasonable and Privacy Act amendments do not apply to criminal files; constitutional claims are not viable under the Privacy Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was EOUSA's FOIA search reasonably calculated to locate records? | Jimenez contends the third superseding indictment exists and was not found by EOUSA. | EOUSA conducted a reasonable search of its records, retrieved the relevant indictments, and even obtained the document from the District Court. | Yes; search was reasonable and adequate for FOIA. |
| Should Request 08-4421 be construed as a Privacy Act claim? | Expungement of forged records is an EOUSA duties matter under FOIA; claims arise under 28 U.S.C. § 534 and the Fifth Amendment. | Request 08-4421 is properly treated as Privacy Act request for amendment of records; Privacy Act exemptions apply to criminal files. | Yes; construed as Privacy Act request and records amendment not available; exemptions apply. |
| Is EOUSA obligated to authenticate or verify the contents of a specific document under FOIA? | EOUSA must verify whether the indictment on file matches the court docket; the forged document exists and is concealed. | FOIA requests seeking authentication or explanation of policies are not proper FOIA requests; agency need not answer such questions. | Yes; not required to authenticate or verify; not a proper FOIA request. |
| Do constitutional claims arising from alleged Privacy Act violations survive in this FOIA/Privacy Act case? | EOUSA must expunge or destroy forged records under constitutional principles tied to the Privacy Act. | Privacy Act claims do not authorize constitutional remedies; exemptions apply to criminal files and relief sought is unavailable. | No; constitutional claims not viable under the Privacy Act in this context. |
Key Cases Cited
- Valencia-Lucena v. U.S. Coast Guard, 180 F.3d 321 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (reasonableness of FOIA search)
- Truitt v. Dept. of State, 897 F.2d 542 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (scope of agency search requirement)
- Steinberg v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 23 F.3d 548 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (FOIA search sufficiency guidance)
- Perry v. Block, 684 F.2d 121 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (FOIA search methodology and burdens)
- Military Audit Project v. Casey, 656 F.2d 724 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (presumptions of good faith for agency affidavits)
- Safe-Card Servs., Inc. v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (no bad faith rebuttal from speculative claims)
- Iturralde v. Comptroller of the Currency, 315 F.3d 311 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (agency affidavits can support summary judgment in FOIA)
- Schrecker v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 349 F.3d 657 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (failure to locate a specific document does not necessarily render search inadequate)
- Wilson v. Libby, 535 F.3d 697 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (Privacy Act rights and access provisions)
- Ramirez v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 594 F.Supp.2d 58 (D.D.C. 2009) (privacy act exemptions for criminal files)