Jones v. Executive Office for the United States Attorneys
959 F. Supp. 2d 52
D.D.C.2013Background
- In May 2010 Torrance Jones submitted a FOIA request to the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) seeking interview statements obtained during his criminal prosecution (specific witnesses and dates identified).
- EOUSA denied the request in full under FOIA Exemption 7(C) as third-party law enforcement statements implicating privacy.
- The Court previously denied EOUSA’s initial and first renewed summary-judgment motions: first because Jones raised a factual dispute that some requested materials might already be public; second because EOUSA had not shown its search was reasonable.
- EOUSA submitted new declarations describing repeated searches of its case-tracking system LIONS (and explanation that records from earlier systems PROMIS/USACTS were migrated into LIONS) and manual review of the archived criminal file USAO 1996R00157 and individual defendant folders.
- The searches located no responsive interview statements; EOUSA declared it did not possess responsive documents and argued its search was reasonably calculated to find any such records.
- The Court concluded EOUSA’s declarations sufficiently detailed and credible to demonstrate the adequacy of its search and granted EOUSA’s renewed motion for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of agency search under FOIA | Jones: EOUSA failed to search older databases (PROMIS) and should have searched by co-defendants' names | EOUSA: Searched LIONS (which includes migrated PROMIS records), searched by Jones and co-defendants, and manually reviewed archived case files | Court: EOUSA’s search was reasonably calculated and adequate; summary judgment for EOUSA |
| Possession of responsive records | Jones: Records may exist and not have been located | EOUSA: No responsive documents located in case file or individual folders; declarations state EOUSA does not possess responsive records | Court: No genuine issue of material fact that EOUSA lacks the documents |
| Applicability of Exemption 7(C) (privacy) | Jones: Some requested info may be public, so Exemption 7(C) may not apply | EOUSA: Denied under 7(C); also argued no responsive records to disclose | Court: Earlier concerns about public-domain material were resolved; here disposition turned on adequacy of search rather than exemption analysis |
| Burden of proof for search adequacy | Jones: Agency must show searches of all relevant systems | EOUSA: Declarations presumptively valid; need only show search was reasonably calculated to uncover responsive records | Court: Agency affidavits/declarations met burden absent countervailing evidence; plaintiff’s speculative claims insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Campbell v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 164 F.3d 20 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (reasonableness test for adequacy of FOIA searches)
- Ancient Coin Collectors Guild v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 641 F.3d 504 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (agency must demonstrate search was reasonably calculated to uncover relevant documents)
- Weisberg v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 705 F.2d 1344 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (issue is adequacy of search, not possibility of other documents)
- Perry v. Block, 684 F.2d 121 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (agency may rely on affidavits to describe search methodology)
- Miller v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 779 F.2d 1378 (8th Cir. 1985) (search need not be exhaustive)
- SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n, 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (affidavits accorded a presumption of good faith)
- Nation Magazine v. U.S. Customs Serv., 71 F.3d 885 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (agency must demonstrate beyond material doubt that search was reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents)