857 F. Supp. 2d 129
D.D.C.2012Background
- Judicial Watch sued DHS under FOIA to obtain records on a January 2004 Border Patrol amnesty survey.
- Judicial Watch’s FOIA request enumerated eight categories of records sought, including survey materials, numbers of apprehensions, and talking points.
- DHS initiated a first search in 2004; 965 pages were found, with limited disclosure and some withheld materials.
- A second, broader DHS search was ordered in February 2006, covering all Customs offices and detailing search parameters.
- After the second search, DHS produced 125 pages in May 2006; the court later allowed renewed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The court ultimately denied DHS’s renewed motion and granted Judicial Watch partial relief, requiring supplemental declarations and an additional targeted search, with the action continued toward a future production.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of the second search | Judicial Watch claims second search should be scrutinized for completeness | DHS contends second search was broader and duplicative of the first | Second search deemed insufficient in parts; requires supplemental declarations |
| Adequacy of declarations describing searches | Suzuki declaration lacks detail for several offices | DHS asserts adequate description overall | Court orders supplemental declaration for deficient components |
| Effect of missing/overlooked records | Missing documents could indicate incomplete search | Record nonexistence or nonretrievability; some items not created | Overlooked materials present substantial doubt; requires new search for San Diego statistics and related records |
| Inconsistencies in DHS submissions | Arguments about scope and centralization alleged inconsistent statements | Court finds no credible indication of bad faith; minor inconsistencies | No basis to deny; no substantial doubt established apart from other issues |
| Judicial Watch’s request to search additional Customs offices | FOIA fishing expeditions unnecessary if records exist elsewhere | Offices not reasonably likely to possess responsive records; no obligation to search irrelevant offices | Denied as to unnecessary fishing expeditions; focus on already identified offices |
Key Cases Cited
- Iturralde v. Comptroller of Currency, 315 F.3d 311 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (adequacy depends on search method, not completeness of all documents)
- SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (agency affidavits receive presumption of good faith; speculative claims insufficient)
- Oglesby v. U.S. Dep’t of Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (detailed search descriptions required to challenge adequacy)
- Perry v. Block, 684 F.2d 121 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (affidavits describing scope and method of search sustain compliance)
- Steinberg v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 23 F.3d 548 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (reasonableness standard for FOIA searches; guided by core principles)