Lea v. Executive Office for United States Attorneys
85 F. Supp. 3d 85
D.D.C.2015Background
- Pro se plaintiff Corey Lea filed a FOIA suit against EOUSA and USDA seeking “authorization documents” and related records from May 2010 onward.
- EOUSA processed 372 pages and withheld them in full under FOIA exemptions 5 (deliberative/attorney work product) and 6, and referred some records originating with USDA to that agency.
- EOUSA conducted a remanded search for records in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Kentucky and reported no additional records.
- USDA’s Farm Service Agency responded that no responsive records were found (May 18, 2010) and the agency has no record of an administrative appeal by Lea.
- Plaintiff did not oppose defendants’ summary judgment motion and did not produce evidence contesting agency declarations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether EOUSA permissibly withheld responsive records under Exemption 5 (attorney work product / deliberative process) | Lea argued he was entitled to the records (generally seeks disclosure) | EOUSA contends withheld documents are protected by attorney work product and deliberative-process privileges | Court: Granted summary judgment to EOUSA on withholding — declarations and Vaughn index sufficiently justify exemptions |
| 2) Whether EOUSA’s referral of records to USDA relieved EOUSA of disclosure responsibility | Lea asserts he should obtain records; no specific evidence on referral outcome | EOUSA asserts referral to originating agency for processing | Court: Denied summary judgment to EOUSA on the referral issue — EOUSA must account for outcome of referral; referral alone does not absolve disclosure duty |
| 3) Whether Lea exhausted administrative remedies with USDA (appeal requirement) | Lea did not show he appealed USDA’s no-records determination | USDA says Lea failed to administratively appeal within 45 days; thus remedies unexhausted | Court: Granted summary judgment for USDA on exhaustion grounds and dismissed USDA claim |
| 4) Adequacy of USDA’s search for responsive records | Lea provided no evidence challenging search adequacy | USDA provided a declaration but it lacked detail about search methods | Court: Denied summary judgment on search adequacy (agency declaration too conclusory) |
Key Cases Cited
- ViroPharma Inc. v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 839 F. Supp. 2d 184 (D.D.C. 2012) (FOIA summary-judgment practice explained)
- Students Against Genocide v. U.S. Dep't of State, 257 F.3d 828 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (agency entitled to judgment if documents produced or wholly exempt)
- Goland v. CIA, 607 F.2d 339 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (foundation for agency summary judgment standard in FOIA)
- SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (agency affidavits may support summary judgment if relatively detailed and nonconclusory)
- Military Audit Project v. Casey, 656 F.2d 724 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (requirements for affidavits describing withheld records and exemptions)
- Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Dep’t of Justice, 432 F.3d 366 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (attorney work product protection may obviate segregability)
- Peralta v. U.S. Attorney’s Office, 136 F.3d 169 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (referral practices can improperly delay or impair requester’s access)
- Calhoun v. Dep’t of Justice, 693 F. Supp. 2d 89 (D.D.C. 2010) (failure to exhaust administrative remedies disfavors judicial review in FOIA cases)