Johnson v. United States of America
239 F. Supp. 3d 38
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- David M. Johnson submitted FOIA requests to the EEOC seeking IRS MD-715 reports covering various periods (initially April 1, 2014 for 2003–2013; later an attempted request for the 2014 report).
- EEOC granted the April 2014 request in part, informed Johnson how to appeal, and found no record of a timely appeal. EEOC had not yet received IRS’s 2013 MD-715 at the time of its April 2014 response.
- EEOC located no record of Johnson’s October 26, 2015 FOIA email; after seeing a copy attached to Johnson’s later filings, EEOC treated the request as received April 4, 2016 and released the 2014 and 2015 reports.
- Johnson named OPM’s Acting Director as a defendant; OPM’s EEO office found no record that Johnson submitted a FOIA request to OPM prior to suit.
- Court construed the complaint as FOIA claims against EEOC and OPM, dismissed individual officials and non-FOIA claims (APA and due process) for failure to state a claim or because FOIA provides the exclusive remedy.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment; the Court considered agency declarations admissible for FOIA summary judgment and granted summary judgment for both agencies (EEOC release mooted claim; OPM never received a proper FOIA request).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether EEOC withheld responsive MD-715 records | Johnson argues EEOC failed to produce requested statistical data and that agency declarations are hearsay/unreliable | EEOC says it produced all responsive MD-715 reports in its possession and followed FOIA procedures; agency declarations describe searches and releases | Court: EEOC produced the requested records in full; claim moot because disclosure made; declarations satisfy FOIA summary judgment standards |
| Whether EEOC was required to provide the 2013 MD-715 | Johnson contends EEOC should have produced 2013 data | EEOC had not received IRS’s 2013 report when it responded and FOIA does not require updating past responses for later-created records | Court: No obligation to produce a report it did not possess at time of response; no duty to supplement prior response |
| Whether OPM violated FOIA by withholding records | Johnson asserts OPM withheld statistical data (April 11, 2016 request raised later) | OPM says it received no FOIA request prior to this suit and thus had no duty to search or produce | Court: Johnson did not submit a proper FOIA request to OPM before filing suit; OPM entitled to summary judgment |
| Whether agency declarations are admissible for summary judgment | Johnson claims declarations rely on inadmissible hearsay and lack personal knowledge | Defendants: declarants have personal familiarity with FOIA procedures and records; supervisors may attest to searches without personally conducting them | Court: Declarations satisfy personal-knowledge and procedural-attestation requirements in FOIA context and may support summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. Bureau of Prisons, 444 F.3d 620 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (no FOIA cause of action against individual federal officials)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard requiring factual allegations to state plausible claim)
- Military Audit Project v. Casey, 656 F.2d 724 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (agency affidavits may support summary judgment in FOIA if detailed and uncontroverted)
- Crooker v. United States State Dep’t, 628 F.2d 9 (D.C. Cir.) (release of requested records renders FOIA claim moot)
- James v. U.S. Secret Service, 811 F. Supp. 2d 351 (D.D.C.) (FOIA does not obligate agencies to update or supplement prior responses)