Lardner v. Federal Bureau of Investigation
875 F. Supp. 2d 49
D.D.C.2012Background
- Lardner, a Pulitzer Prize journalist, filed FOIA requests in 1993 and 2003 seeking FBI/agency records, including Top Hoodlum Program materials.
- The court previously granted partial summary judgment finding the FBI’s search for records adequate and ordered reprocessing of responsive materials.
- FBI agreed to process ~34,000 pages related to THP, provide a status report, and search ELSUR indices in 19 field offices.
- A Vaughn Index was filed in 2010 based on 150 sampled documents about Giancana and Dellacroce.
- Lardner sought records on Giancana, Dellacroce, and THP; he challenged the FBI’s search adequacy and asserted new evidence.
- The court denied Lardner’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration under Rule 59(e), upholding the adequacy of the FBI’s search and related determinations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the FBI’s search was adequate for Giancana records | Lardner argues the search failed to uncover additional records and inadequately searched ADB/Inactive Indices | FBI asserts reasonable search; CRS/ADB searches plus hand-review were sufficient | Search deemed adequate; mere speculation about missing records not enough |
| Whether the FBI’s search was adequate for Dellacroce records | FBI failed to search Confidential Source Indices; Dellacroce possibly an informant | No separate index; CRS search covered confidential sources; no evidence of informant status | Search adequate; CRS searches encompassed confidential sources; lack of evidence does not show failure |
| Whether new evidence warrants reconsideration or discovery | New information suggests more records and supports Glomar-like inferences | New evidence not properly substantiated; Glomar defense not improperly invoked | Rule 59(e) motion denied; no extraordinary circumstances to require discovery |
| Whether the FBI inadequately disclosed missing sections or search methodology | FBI did not provide full search methodology and all file sections | Declarations sufficiently describe search methods; missing files speculation insufficient | Adequacy evaluated by reasonableness of methods, not completeness of all records |
| Whether FOIA field-office search requirements were violated by sole HQ requests | FBI searched field offices beyond submitted requests | Requests to field offices must be filed individually; HQ requests do not obligate field searches | No violation; proper FOIA process followed; field-office searches not required without proper requests |
Key Cases Cited
- Weisberg v. Dep’t of Justice, 745 F.2d 1476 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (adequacy of FOIA search hinges on reasonable methods, not exhaustive results)
- Oglesby v. United States Dep’t of the Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (search must be of systems likely to contain responsive records)
- Taylor v. DOJ, 268 F. Supp. 2d 34 (D.D.C. 2003) (Rule 59(e) standards; extraordinary circumstances required)
- Steinberg v. Dep’t of Justice, 23 F.3d 548 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (adequacy of search assessed by search method, not fruit of result)
- Meeropol v. Meese, 790 F.2d 942 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (no requirement to locate every conceivable document in a large search)
- Negley v. FBI, 658 F. Supp. 2d 50 (D.D.C. 2009) (limits on search scope when multiple databases exist; relevant to CRS search)