Civil Action No. 2019-0879
D.D.C.Mar 28, 2022Background
- Judicial Watch filed a FOIA request (July 2018) seeking records about an April 2017 meeting between DOJ/FBI personnel and Associated Press reporters.
- DOJ components that searched: Criminal Division (multiple offices/custodians and shared drives), FBI (Central Records System/CRS and Special Counsel’s Office files), and Office of Information Policy (OIP) (SCO emails and paper boxes).
- Criminal Division searched multiple custodians' email accounts with reporter names/email terms and produced 351 pages (54 withheld in full); supplemental searches produced additional pages.
- FBI searched CRS and SCO investigatory files, located 28 responsive pages including Special Agent Pfeiffer’s notes and memorandum.
- OIP searched SCO electronic files and paper box lists (including a box labeled referencing a "Manafort Trial Binder"), manually reviewed the box, and later produced additional Flores-related emails after supplemental review.
- Judicial Watch challenged the adequacy of DOJ’s searches; the court applied the FOIA adequacy standard and concluded most searches were reasonable but that DOJ failed to search one identified custodian’s records (Assistant U.S. Attorney Shreve Ariail). The court granted in part and denied in part both summary judgment motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DOJ searched offices/systems likely to contain responsive records (e.g., Office of Public Affairs, Fraud Section shared drives) | DOJ should have searched the entire Public Affairs Office and Fraud Section shared drives | DOJ reasonably followed leads showing only Sarah Flores in OPA was implicated and the Money Laundering Section (not Fraud Section) handled the meeting | Search adequate as to Public Affairs (Flores-only) and no obligation to search Fraud Section shared drives |
| Whether DOJ searched records of known custodians (two FBI agents and AUSA Shreve Ariail) | DOJ failed to search all identified attendees' records | FBI’s CRS is the proper central system for agents’ records; DOJ maintains Ariail’s records are EOUSA’s responsibility | Search adequate for FBI agents (CRS); inadequate for Ariail — DOJ obligated to pursue that clear lead |
| Whether search terms and date ranges were adequate (use of reporter names/emails, inclusion of "Manafort", and end-date) | Terms and date ranges were too narrow; should include reporter emails, "Manafort", and extend through July 2018 | Terms/dates were reasonable and tailored to the meeting and the SCO’s timeframe; agency need not adopt requester’s preferred terms | Search terms and date ranges were reasonable and adequate |
| Adequacy of search for the "trial binder" (SCO paper files/box review) | DOJ unclear whether it located binder contents or simply narrowed responsiveness | OIP identified a relevant box, performed manual page-by-page review, and found no responsive documents | Search adequate; plaintiff effectively conceded after DOJ’s explanation |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard)
- Brayton v. Office of U.S. Trade Representative, 641 F.3d 521 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (most FOIA cases resolved on summary judgment)
- Light v. DOJ, 968 F. Supp. 2d 11 (D.D.C. 2013) (defendant bears burden to show search adequacy)
- Truitt v. Dep’t of State, 897 F.2d 540 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (adequacy depends on circumstances)
- Oglesby v. U.S. Dep’t of Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (reasonably detailed affidavit standard for FOIA searches)
- Kowalczyk v. Dep’t of Justice, 73 F.3d 386 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (agency need not follow speculative leads; 'clear and certain' lead standard)
- Campbell v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 164 F.3d 20 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (agency may confine search to central filing system when marginal return unlikely)
- Mobley v. CIA, 806 F.3d 568 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (reasonableness is the touchstone of adequacy)
- Weisberg v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 745 F.2d 1476 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (focus on whether search was adequate, not whether other documents might exist)
- DiBacco v. U.S. Army, 795 F.3d 178 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (agency need not adopt every search design proposed by requester)
- Schrecker v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 349 F.3d 657 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (courts should not micromanage FOIA searches)