867 F. Supp. 2d 1
D.D.C.2011Background
- Lewis sues DOJ under FOIA seeking DOJ-maintained records in the DC District Court action Civil Action No. 09-0746 (RBW).
- DOJ moved for summary judgment; court had previously granted partial judgment without prejudice.
- EOUSA processed requester through USAO-FLM; 35 pages released, 6 pages released in part under Exemption 7(C), 59 pages referred to DEA.
- OPR search yielded 3 files (54 pages total); 18 released in full, 27 released in part under Exemptions 2, 5, 6, 7(C).
- DEA responses: Request Nos. 04-0699-F, 09-0187-P, 09-0285-P produced substantial releases with redactions under Exemptions 6, 7(C), 7(D), and 7(F).
- Court held EOUSA and OPR searches reasonable; denied relief from judgment; granted in part the defendant’s renewed motion for summary judgment, with partial denial regarding Exemption 2 and referral issues and deferral on segregability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| adequacy of EOUSA search for responsive records | Lewis argues search did not specify exact files or locations searched. | EOUSA declarations show LIONS-based search by USAO-FLM and retrieval from the plaintiff’s case file. | EOUSA search deemed reasonable. |
| adequacy of OPR search for responsive records | Lewis contends OPR search lacks sufficient description of files searched. | OPR search of the BRS database yielded three correspondence files responsive to the request. | OPR search deemed reasonable. |
| applicability of Exemption 2 post Milner v. Dep't of the Navy | Milner narrows Exemption 2; withheld items like case/file numbers should be released. | Exemption 2 was relied on for various internal data; Milner requires reevaluation. | Partial denial; defendant may reconsider Exemption 2 in light of Milner. |
| validity of Exemptions 5, 6, 7(C), 7(D) as to withheld material | Plaintiff questions withholding under these exemptions and seeks greater disclosure. | Information withheld under Exemptions 5 (deliberative process), 6 (personal privacy), 7(C) (privacy in law enforcement records), and 7(D) (confidential sources) is properly protected. | Exemptions 5, 6, 7(C), and 7(D) properly applied; with caveat on Exemption 2 noted above. |
| relief from judgment | Recent evidence warrants relief from the August 17, 2010 ruling. | No basis for Rule 54(b) relief; no error or new controlling law to justify reconsideration. | Relief denied; judgment upheld on interlocutory rulings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Military Audit Project v. Casey, 656 F.2d 724 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (affidavits may support summary judgment in FOIA cases if detailed and non-conflicting)
- SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (presumption of good faith for agency affidavits; not rebutted by mere speculation)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 317 (S. Ct. 1986) (summary judgment standard; genuine disputes require trial)
- U.S. Dep’t of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (S. Ct. 1989) (FOIA privacy/public interest balancing; public interest essential for disclosure)
- Kissinger v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136 (S. Ct. 1980) (FOIA agency records; scope of agency responsibility)