Riddick v. United States Department of Justice, 134 F. Supp. 3d 281

Riddick, proceeding pro se, seeks FOIA records from EOUSA, a DOJ component.
Court analyzes cross-motions for summary judgment and a motion to strike a declaration.
Riddick challenges EOUSA's processing and withholding under FOIA exemptions.
Requests 12-3487, 12-3536, and 13-2508 involve searches, fees, and produced/redacted records.
EOUSA relied on (b)(5) exemptions and fee-based closing; Riddick did not pay processing fees.
Court denies Riddick’s summary judgment motion and grants EOUSA’s; motions to strike denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether EOUSA properly processed Riddick’s FOIA requests	Riddick asserts improper withholding and incomplete production	EOUSA conducted adequate search and properly withheld under (b)(5)	Yes; proper processing shown under (b)(5) and fee-related closure.
Whether documents withheld were protected by FOIA exemption (b)(5)	Riddick contends more documents should be released	Redactions/withholdings justified as attorney work product and deliberative process	Yes; records properly withheld under (b)(5).
Whether closing the request for nonpayment of fees was proper	Riddick disputes fee-based closure	FOIA requires payment before continued processing; closure proper absent payment	Yes; EOUSA acted properly by closing for nonpayment.
Whether Riddick’s motion to strike the Luczynski Declaration should succeed	Declaration is in bad faith and lacks personal knowledge	Declaration supported by agency procedures; no bad faith shown	No; motion to strike denied.

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard requires no genuine issue of material fact when appropriate)
Military Audit Project v. Casey, 656 F.2d 724 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (establishes framework for FOIA exemptions and government’s burden)