New Orleans Workers' Ctr. for Racial Justice v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement
373 F. Supp. 3d 16
| D.C. Cir. | 2019Background
- In Nov. 2013 plaintiffs (New Orleans Workers' Center and individuals) submitted a FOIA request to ICE seeking records about the Criminal Alien Removal Initiative (CARI) and related practices (fingerprinting, coordination with local law enforcement, arrest data, fiscal impact, training, prosecutorial-discretion requests).
- ICE initially searched limited components (primarily ERO and OPLA) and produced multiple rolling productions beginning May 2015, totaling several thousand pages; plaintiffs sued in Mar. 2015 alleging inadequate search and improper withholdings.
- Plaintiffs identified additional custodians, databases, search terms, and missing attachments by correspondence; ICE did not timely narrow the request or meaningfully consult plaintiffs pre-litigation.
- The District Court reviewed cross-motions for summary judgment under FOIA's reasonableness/search adequacy standards and exemptions 5, 6, 7(C), and 7(E).
- Court found ICE's search deficient in several respects: failed to search at least six offices likely to have responsive records, failed to search certain databases for CARI-related data, and failed to produce email attachments; other search aspects (non-database systems, search terms) were inadequately documented.
- Court also found ICE's Vaughn descriptions and affidavits insufficient to justify withholdings under Exemptions 5, 6, 7(C), and 7(E), and ordered ICE to conduct additional searches or provide more detailed affidavits/Vaughn entries.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of ICE's search | ICE failed to search headquarters components, relevant databases, custodians, and attachments; used inadequate terms | Request overly broad; ICE reasonably limited searches to offices likely to have CARI records and used reasonable terms like "CARI" | Search was inadequate: ICE failed to search six offices, failed to search databases for CARI data, and omitted email attachments; other search documentation gaps require supplementation |
| Search terms and methods | ICE used narrow/haphazard terms (mostly "CARI") and allowed inconsistent custodian searches | ICE used over 80 terms and left searches to custodians' knowledge and practices | ICE did not adequately explain term choices or variance; must either run additional terms or justify choices with detail |
| Withholdings under Exemption 5 (deliberative process) | Many redactions (drafts, meeting notes, talking points, draft stats) are not properly justified or are adopted/final | ICE contends material is predecisional, deliberative, and tied to decisionmaking process | Vaughn entries and affidavits are too vague/boilerplate; ICE failed to show the function, role, and decisionmaking authority for withheld documents; withholdings not sustained without better detail |
| Withholdings under Exemptions 6 and 7(C) (privacy/law enforcement) | ICE overbroadly redacted names, emails, case histories; many records not clearly law-enforcement files; public interest weighs disclosure | ICE asserts privacy interests for federal employees, immigration officers, third parties and claims records were compiled for law enforcement | ICE failed to demonstrate records were compiled for law enforcement and did not particularize privacy interests; withheld information not justified on current record |
| Withholdings under Exemption 7(E) (techniques/procedures) | ICE redacted codes, database fields, operational material; plaintiffs argue some redactions cover media, congressional, non-law-enforcement material | ICE claims disclosure would risk circumvention, cyber-access, manipulation of systems and exposure of techniques | ICE's descriptions are categorical and vague; for many entries it failed to show the withheld info was law-enforcement material or that disclosure would reasonably risk circumvention; some narrowly described items might justify withholding but ICE must provide detailed support |
Key Cases Cited
- Iturralde v. Comptroller of Currency, 315 F.3d 311 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (agency may meet search-burden with reasonably detailed affidavit describing search terms and locations)
- Weisberg v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 705 F.2d 1344 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (agency must conduct search reasonably calculated to uncover relevant documents)
- Truitt v. U.S. Dep't of State, 897 F.2d 540 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (search adequacy measured by reasonableness under the circumstances)
- Oglesby v. U.S. Dep't of Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (no requirement to search every division, but must search locations likely to have responsive records)
- LaCedra v. Exec. Office for U.S. Att'ys, 317 F.3d 345 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (FOIA requests construed liberally; agencies should interpret reasonably)
- Campbell v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 164 F.3d 20 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (agency must follow leads that emerge and justify search scope)
- Ancient Coin Collectors Guild v. U.S. Dep't of State, 641 F.3d 504 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (fruits of search not determinative; adequacy depends on methods used)
- Blackwell v. FBI, 646 F.3d 37 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (Exemption 7(E) requires logical showing how disclosure might risk circumvention)
- Mayer Brown LLP v. IRS, 562 F.3d 1190 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (discusses Exemption 7(E) risk standard)