Landmark Legal Foundation v. U.S. Department of Justice
211 F. Supp. 3d 311
D.D.C.2016Background
- Landmark Legal Foundation submitted two FOIA requests (July 24, 2013): a "Personal Email" request seeking records "evincing" use of private/personal email, text, instant messaging, or social media for DOJ business (targeting political appointees, SES, OAG, ODAG, and Civil Rights); and an "Alias Email" request seeking records showing establishment/maintenance of alias/alternative email addresses and related compilations.
- OIP and Civil Rights treated the Personal Email request as overbroad and unclear; OIP negotiated a narrowing with Landmark that excluded forwarded/cc’d messages between DOJ and personal accounts; OIP and Civil Rights concluded they could not reasonably search personal accounts absent more specificity.
- Civil Rights produced 64 pages of volunteered personal emails from then‑AAG Thomas Perez (with redactions) but declined to conduct broad searches of employees’ private accounts; OIP affirmed Civil Rights’ search as reasonable and found a comprehensive search would be unreasonably burdensome.
- Civil Rights responded to the Alias Email request by producing account‑creation records and a single email about Perez’s address; Landmark did not administratively appeal Civil Rights’ Alias response.
- DOJ moved to dismiss/for summary judgment: arguing the Personal Email request fails to reasonably describe records and is unreasonably burdensome; the Alias Email claim against Civil Rights should be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Personal Email FOIA request reasonably describes the records sought | Landmark says request targets leadership and is sufficiently tailored to identify agency records in personal accounts | DOJ says request is vague (asks for records that "evince" use), seeks creation of new compilations, and does not enable targeted searching | Court: Request fails to reasonably describe records; not a valid FOIA request — dismissed |
| Whether the Personal Email request is unreasonably burdensome | Landmark contends DOJ could ask covered employees whether they used personal accounts and, if so, have them search and produce responsive records | DOJ argues the request covers many employees and multiple media without topical limits, requiring impracticable, unfocused searches of private accounts | Court: Request is unreasonably burdensome; summary judgment for DOJ |
| Whether DOJ was required to search employees' personal accounts or to create new compilations/lists | Landmark contends DOJ should have instructed employees to search personal repositories and produce responsive records | DOJ responds FOIA does not require creation of new records or wide-ranging searches of private accounts absent identifying information | Court: FOIA does not obligate agency to create new compilations or undertake unfocused personal‑account searches; agency need not "answer the question" about who used private email |
| Whether Landmark exhausted administrative remedies for the Alias Email request to Civil Rights | Landmark did not appeal Civil Rights’ production; argues nothing (no timely appeal) | DOJ: failure to administratively appeal the adverse determination precludes judicial review; Civil Rights timely responded so appeal was required | Court: Landmark failed to exhaust administrative remedies for Civil Rights’ Alias response; Count II dismissed as to Civil Rights |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (definition of genuine issue of material fact)
- Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (view facts favorably to non‑movant on summary judgment)
- Steinberg v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 23 F.3d 548 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (standard for adequacy of FOIA search)
- Oglesby v. Dep’t of the Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (agency must make good faith effort to search likely systems)
- SafeCard Servs. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (presumption of agency good faith; speculative claims insufficient)
- NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132 (FOIA does not require agencies to create records)
- Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington v. FEC, 711 F.3d 180 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (administrative‑exhaustion rule in FOIA context)
- Competitive Enterprise Institute v. Office of Science & Technology Policy, 827 F.3d 145 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (recognition that some non‑agency servers/accounts can hold FOIA‑covered records)