160 F. Supp. 3d 285
D.D.C.2016Background
- Pro se plaintiff Jeremy Pinson, an inmate at ADX Florence, submitted multiple FOIA requests to DOJ/OIP between 2010–2012 seeking communications involving the Attorney General and records about BOP director selections and inmate deaths.
- OIP searched the Departmental Executive Secretariat (DES) and Office of the Attorney General (OAG)/Deputy AG (ODAG) files using targeted search terms and located responsive documents for three requests (72 pages for AG/10-R1351; none for AG/11-0826/AG/12-00010; 139 pages for AG/12-0668/DAG/12-0669).
- OIP released some pages (with limited redactions) and withheld others in full, often at BOP’s request; BOP later provided separate justifications for its withholdings in a different filing.
- Pinson challenged adequacy of searches, certain redactions, and that documents for AG/12-0668 were mailed to the wrong prison and thus never received.
- The Court reviewed OIP’s Brinkmann declaration and related record, granted summary judgment to DOJ for two requests (AG/10-R1351 and AG/11-0826/AG/12-00010), ordered re-mailing of documents for AG/12-0668, and denied summary judgment as to one OIP redaction (the identity of a third-party recommender).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of search for AG/10-R1351 | Pinson argued searches were inadequate and challenged declarations as hearsay | OIP says it searched OAG and DES using reasonable terms and within the two-hour search limit Pinson requested | Search adequate; summary judgment for DOJ granted |
| Adequacy of search for AG/11-0826 (AG/12-00010) | Pinson contended records must exist (DOJ/State input on ECHR docket) | OIP searched DES with names and checked ECHR docket; found no responsive AG records | Search adequate; summary judgment for DOJ granted |
| Adequacy of search & delivery for AG/12-0668 | Pinson says he never received produced documents and challenges some redactions | OIP argues it conducted adequate DES/ODAG/OAG searches and produced responsive pages (some redacted) | Search adequate; Court ordered OIP to re-mail responsive documents to correct address |
| Withholding of recommender identity (AG/12-0668) under Exemption 6 | Pinson: identity bears on public interest in who influenced BOP Director selection | OIP: disclosure would invade privacy; employer and substance already disclosed so identity unnecessary | Withholding denied. Identity must be disclosed — public interest in identifying actors outweighs asserted privacy absent factual support |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Valencia–Lucena v. U.S. Coast Guard, 180 F.3d 321 (adequacy of agency search standard)
- Oglesby v. Dep’t of the Army, 920 F.2d 57 (requirement for reasonably detailed affidavit of search)
- SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (presumption of agency good faith; speculative rebuttal insufficient)
- Multi Ag Media LLC v. Dep’t of Agric., 515 F.3d 1224 (scope of privacy interest and FOIA balancing)
- Weisberg v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 627 F.2d 365 (agency must show documents produced, nonidentifiable, or exempt)