Richardson v. United States, 80 F. Supp. 3d 128

Background

Plaintiff Richardson, pro se, sued the United States under FOIA for records from EOUSA related to his criminal case and surveillance photos.
EOUSA located responsive records in 2011–2013 and initially released 100 pages with a $0 fee for the rest; plaintiff paid a fee for the remaining pages.
EOUSA ultimately determined 1240 responsive pages, releasing 22 pages in full, 1 partially, and withholding 1217 pages under various FOIA exemptions.
Defendant identified exemptions (3, 5, 6, 7(C)) and provided a Vaughn index describing documents withheld; plaintiff challenged the production as incomplete.
The court partially grants and partially denies defendant’s summary judgment motion: search adequacy disputed for still photos; exemptions 5 and 7(C) applied to most withheld materials, with issues remaining on segregability and complete justification for 7(C) documents.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether EOUSA’s search for responsive records was adequate.	Richardson contends missing still photos show an incomplete search.	EOUSA conducted a reasonable search using LIONS and Criminal Case File System; duplicates not produced must be due to withholding, not search failure.	Partially denied; search for still photos not adequately shown; factual doubt remains.
Whether the withheld records were properly exempt under Exemption 5.	Not necessary; focus on completeness, not exemption scope.	Documents 1-10, 13, 14 are properly withheld as attorney work product.	Granted for Documents 1-10, 13, 14 under Exemption 5.
Whether Documents 11 and 12 are properly exempt under Exemption 7(C) with proper segregability.	Documents 11-12 contain non-exempt information; need segregability analysis.	Exemption 7(C) applies to privacy concerns; lack of segregability analysis in record.	Denied in part; require further description or in camera review for Documents 11-12.
Whether plaintiff’s discovery/continuance/amendment requests are warranted.	Moves to delay ruling to obtain discovery about the missing still photos and amend complaint.	FOIA limits relief to injunctive relief and proper disclosure; discovery not appropriate for this FOIA action.	Denied; motions denied as meritless.
Whether the case should be resolved on summary judgment given the record.	Incomplete production warrants delaying judgment.	Record supports partial grant of summary judgment where exemptions apply and search adequacy is shown; but some issues remain.	Summary judgment granted in part and denied in part; remaining issues to be renewed with more detail.

Key Cases Cited

Valencia–Lucena v. U.S. Coast Guard, 180 F.3d 321 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (adequacy standard for FOIA search; reasonably detailed affidavits required)
Truitt v. Dep’t of State, 897 F.2d 540 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (scope of agency search adequacy; reasonableness)
Weisberg v. Dep’t of Justice, 705 F.2d 1344 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (guidelines for agency search and exemptions analysis)
Oglesby v. U.S. Dep’t of the Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (detailed search affidavit requirements; not exhaustive)
Perry v. Block, 684 F.2d 121 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (limits on exhaustive search expectations; reasonableness standard)
Founding Church of Scientology of Washington, D.C., Inc. v. Nat’l Sec. Agency, 610 F.2d 824 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (overbreadth concerns and sufficiency of search; ‘reasonably calculated to uncover’ materials)
Steinberg v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 23 F.3d 548 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (search adequacy and balancing of duties in FOIA cases)
Wilbur v. C.I.A., 355 F.3d 675 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (overlooked materials can raise substantial doubts about search adequacy)
Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Dep’t of Justice, 432 F.3d 366 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (work product and segregability considerations under Exemption 5)
Tax Analysts v. IRS, 117 F.3d 607 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (work product doctrine under Exemption 5; full withholding doctrine)
Johnson v. Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, 310 F.3d 771 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (must assess segregability and exemption application; context for exemptions)
NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132 (U.S. 1975) (work product and non-disclosure principles under Exemption 5)
Judicial Watch v. Dep’t of Justice, 432 F.3d 366 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (reiterated Exemption 5 analysis and segregability)