Parker v. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Civil Action No. 2015-1253
| D.D.C. | Dec 29, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Lonnie J. Parker filed a FOIA request seeking ICE records from Little Rock (1998–Jan. 31, 2006) related to his criminal investigation.
- ICE searched ERO’s Central Index (no hits) and HSI’s TECS (produced 60 pages with redactions under Exemptions 6 and 7) and later located 129 additional hard-file pages in Little Rock.
- After initial summary-judgment briefing, the Court found ICE’s withholdings under Exemption 7 justified but held the agency had not adequately described its email/search methodology for Agent Sanders and backup systems possibly containing Agent Mensinger’s emails.
- Court ordered more detailed declarations regarding: (1) search terms and mechanics used by Agent Sanders; (2) whether Sanders communicated with the FBI via email; (3) whether pre-Outlook emails migrated to current systems or remained on inaccessible backup tapes; and (4) specifics about the backup/searchability of Mensinger’s emails.
- ICE submitted renewed declarations from Agent Sanders (describing his Outlook searches and lack of recollection of electronic FBI communications) and Charles Mader (IT) describing ICE’s pre-2006 email systems, NetBackup/Enterprise Vault use, and limitations locating/searching pre-2006 tapes.
- The Court concluded ICE’s supplemental submissions resolved some but not all gaps and therefore granted and denied both parties’ renewed summary-judgment motions in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of custodian (Sanders) searching his own email | Sanders may lack technical qualifications to perform a sufficient search | Custodian is appropriate; Outlook searches are not complex and custodian knows his archive | Court: Custodian search acceptable; no evidence Sanders was unqualified |
| Specificity of Sanders’ search mechanics and search terms | ICE failed to provide exact search terms, folder scope, and Outlook search type | Sanders described methods generally (Outlook search across folders) | Court: ICE must supply exact search terms and clarify which archive folders were searched; otherwise inadequate |
| Location and fate of pre-2006 emails (Sanders / migration) | Sanders’ declaration does not explain whether pre-2006 emails existed, migrated, or were on other systems | Mader explains many pre-2006 offices used cc:Mail and older emails were not migrated and rely on unreadable/ disposed backup tapes | Court: ICE must clarify where Sanders’ pre-2006 emails would be or why none exist; ICE’s broader IT explanation largely explains limitations but factual gap about Sanders’ office remains |
| Searchability of backup tapes and Mensinger’s emails | NetBackup search may not capture all Little Rock tapes; OCIO didn’t explain NetBackup’s exclusivity | OCIO/ Mader: NetBackup retrieves Exchange/Outlook backups; pre-2006 non-Outlook tapes are unreadable or discarded; OCIO searched Dallas backups and found no Mensinger emails from relevant period | Court: Mader’s declaration largely adequate to show practical obstacles and limitations; ICE need not obtain antiquated equipment, but gaps about specific tape availability/search steps require limited clarification |
Key Cases Cited
- Weisberg v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 705 F.2d 1344 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (agency must conduct a search reasonably calculated to uncover requested records)
- Oglesby v. U.S. Dep’t of the Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (adequacy measured by good-faith, reasonable methods expected to produce requested information)
- Campbell v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 164 F.3d 20 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (reasonableness standard; agency need not search every system)
- Iturralde v. Comptroller of Currency, 315 F.3d 311 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (adequacy judged by methods used, not fruits)
- Goland v. Central Intelligence Agency, 607 F.2d 339 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (courts may rely on detailed, nonconclusory agency declarations)
- Founding Church of Scientology v. Nat’l Sec. Agency, 610 F.2d 824 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (requester may rebut agency affidavits and prevent summary judgment if sufficiency is genuinely in issue)