Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press v. United States Department of Justice, Civil Action No. 2019-2847

Background

RCFP filed FOIA requests to FBI, DOJ Criminal Division, and EOUSA seeking records about federal involvement in the May 10, 2019 SFPD raid of journalist Bryan Carmody and the FBI agents’ questioning of him.
Carmody was questioned by two FBI agents during the raid; state courts later quashed the warrants under California shield law and the City settled with Carmody, facts that informed public-interest arguments.
RCFP sought emails, texts, and communications (including with specified California agencies) and any DOJ authorization/memoranda regarding questioning a member of the news media under 28 C.F.R. § 50.10 (News Media Policy).
The FBI produced a one-page interview note with agent names redacted under Exemptions 6 and 7(C); Criminal Division and EOUSA produced no records.
The Court held the agencies’ searches for responsive records were inadequate (FBI, Criminal Division, EOUSA) and granted summary judgment for RCFP as to the searches; it ordered disclosure of the identity of one agent already in the public domain but upheld withholding of the other agent’s name under Exemption 7(C).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adequacy of FBI search	FBI limited search to CRS index; RCFP showed responsive FBI emails existed outside CRS (SFPD production), so text/email searches were required	FBI said CRS index search was reasonable; electronic searches were unnecessary without a clear lead in processed records	FBI search unreasonable; summary judgment for RCFP on adequacy of search
Adequacy of Criminal Division search	Searching only PSEU/FOTS was too narrow because PSEU likely not consulted if News Media Policy was not followed; other components likely hold records	Criminal Division said PSEU was the unit most likely to have responsive records and the Policy applies mainly to federal investigations	Search unreasonable because facts suggest Policy may not have been followed; summary judgment for RCFP on adequacy of search
Adequacy of EOUSA search	EOUSA’s search (limited Case View/PROMIS search for “Bryan Carmody” plus an office-wide email solicitation that got no responses) was cursory and insufficient	EOUSA said it searched its case databases and solicited staff to search their emails	Search unreasonable; summary judgment for RCFP on adequacy of search
Withholding agent names under Exemptions 6/7(C)	One agent’s identity is already public (SFPD emails); public interest in government compliance with News Media Policy justifies disclosure	Disclosure would harm agents’ privacy and effectiveness; risk of harassment and interference with duties	One agent’s name must be disclosed (public domain); the other agent’s name may be withheld under Exemption 7(C) because the privacy interest outweighs the public interest

Key Cases Cited

Weisberg v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 705 F.2d 1344 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (agency must show search reasonably calculated to uncover records)
Oglesby v. U.S. Dep’t of Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (affidavits should detail search terms and systems searched)
Valencia Lucena v. U.S. Coast Guard, 180 F.3d 321 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (agency must demonstrate search beyond material doubt)
DiBacco v. Dep’t of the Army, 926 F.3d 827 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (substantial doubt about adequacy when positive indications of overlooked materials exist)
Reps. Comm. for Freedom of Press v. FBI, 3 F.4th 350 (D.C. Cir.) (FOIA Improvement Act requires foreseeable harm showing for exemptions)
Nat’l Archives & Records Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157 (2004) (public interest under privacy exemptions must be more than conjecture)
Sussman v. U.S. Marshals Serv., 494 F.3d 1106 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (public interest for Exemption 7(C) is limited to informing citizens about government conduct)
SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (presumption of agency good faith in FOIA searches)