Liberation Newspaper v. U.S. Department of State
80 F. Supp. 3d 137
D.D.C.2015Background
- Liberation filed a FOIA action seeking documents from the Department of State about contracts/payments to ninety Miami journalists during 1998–2002 related to five Cuban intelligence agents' trial.
- Plaintiff alleges USIA, BBG, and OCB covertly paid journalists to influence public opinion; USIA later merged into State as of 1999.
- Defendant conducted multiple searches across State's Central File and retired USIA records; three declarations detail the searches.
- Plaintiff sought expedited processing, which the court later deemed moot after final agency response; defendant moved for summary judgment.
- Court found the defendant's searches adequate despite no responsive documents being produced, granting summary judgment for the defendant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the search adequate under FOIA? | Plaintiff contends searches were insufficient. | Defendant asserts searches were reasonably tailored and thoroughly conducted. | Yes; court found searches adequate and granted summary judgment. |
| Was the Central File search with restrictive parameters proper? | Parameters improperly narrowed search for journalists. | Search expanded and yielded no results; parameters were reasonable. | Moot; supplemental full-text search conducted without restrictions yielded no results. |
| Was the USIA retired records search adequately explained? | Declarations did not sufficiently describe the retired records search. | Declarations offer detailed, multi-layer search of retired USIA files. | Yes; search described in detail and deemed reasonable. |
| Were search terms for OLA and WHA appropriately crafted? | Alternative search terms might have yielded more documents. | Terms were reasonably tailored to uncover responsive records; cannot micromanage. | Yes; terms deemed reasonably calculated to uncover responsive records. |
Key Cases Cited
- Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Secret Serv., 726 F.3d 208 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (agency affidavits may support summary judgment in FOIA cases)
- Consumer Fed’n of Am. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 455 F.3d 283 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (exemption/application and agency search standards)
- Iturralde v. Comptroller of Currency, 315 F.3d 311 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (FOIA search adequacy focuses on methods, not fruits)
- Baker & Hostetler LLP v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce, 473 F.3d 312 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (detailed affidavits support search adequacy)
- SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (presumption of good faith for agency declarations)
- Weisberg v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 627 F.2d 365 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (need for systematic search and detailed reporting)
- Oglesby v. U.S. Dep’t of Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (requirement for reasonably detailed search description)
- Physicians for Human Rights v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., 675 F. Supp. 2d 149 (D.D.C. 2009) (agency search terms need not be identical to requestor's terms)
- Johnson v. Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, 310 F.3d 771 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (agency discretion in crafting search terms)
- Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev., 20 F. Supp. 3d 247 (D.D.C. 2014) (centralized vs. department-specific search terms allowed)