Patrick Eddington v. DOD, 35 F.4th 833

In July 2019 Eddington used the Airmail email app on his MacBook Air to send FOIA requests to 14 DOD components and saved PDF copies of each sent message with timestamps.
He received no acknowledgments or responses and did not follow up; six to seven months later he filed suit (Feb. 2020) asking the district court to order searches and production.
The DOD moved for summary judgment, submitting a detailed declaration from Mark Herrington describing outreach to each component and searches of inboxes, spam folders, and FOIA logs; Herrington concluded none of the components had received the requests.
The district court granted summary judgment for the DOD, finding Eddington’s PDFs and declaration insufficient to rebut the presumption of good faith accorded the agency’s declaration, and denied discovery.
On appeal the D.C. Circuit reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo and the discovery ruling for abuse of discretion and affirmed the district court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Eddington created a genuine dispute that the DOD received his FOIA requests	Eddington said he sent the requests and produced timestamped PDF copies and declared he saved the sent messages	DOD produced a detailed declaration showing searches of inboxes, spam folders, and FOIA logs that found no requests; agency declarations get a good-faith presumption	Court: Eddington failed to rebut presumption; PDFs show only sending, not receipt, and speculative theories about spam/deletion insufficient
Whether the common-law mailbox rule should be applied to presume receipt of emailed FOIA requests	Apply mailbox rule to emailed requests so a properly sent email is presumed received	Mailbox rule is not appropriate here; no evidence Airmail app is as reliable as postal service and applying the rule conflicts with FOIA precedent favoring presumption of government regularity	Court: Declined to adopt mailbox presumption here; even if rule could apply, Eddington produced no evidence to trigger it
Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying discovery into what happened to the emails	Discovery needed to test DOD’s assertions about receipt and spam deletions	Discovery in FOIA is rare and requires a showing of bad faith; DOD’s nonconclusory declaration does not suggest bad faith	Court: No abuse of discretion; Eddington made no showing of agency bad faith

SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (agency declarations that are relatively detailed and nonconclusory get a presumption of good faith)
Ground Saucer Watch, Inc. v. CIA, 692 F.2d 770 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (similar standard for agency affidavits in FOIA cases)
Evans v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 951 F.3d 578 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (agency affidavits may support summary judgment if sufficiently specific)
Mobley v. CIA, 806 F.3d 568 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (requester cannot demand agency search a particular system without evidence that system likely contains records)
Baker & Hostetler LLP v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, 473 F.3d 312 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (standard for adequacy of agency FOIA searches)
Pinson v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 69 F. Supp. 3d 108 (D.D.C. 2014) (plaintiff must create a genuine dispute that agency received FOIA request when agency asserts nonreceipt)
Iturralde v. Comptroller of Currency, 315 F.3d 311 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (examples of when affidavits may be inadequate)
McGehee v. CIA, 697 F.2d 1095 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (agency must process FOIA requests it receives)
Nat’l Archives & Records Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157 (2004) (recognizes a presumption of legitimacy for government conduct in the FOIA context)