Rodriguez v. United States Department of Defense
236 F. Supp. 3d 26
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Robert W. Rodriguez, a retired Army colonel, filed two FOIA requests (Oct. 2013) seeking records about his Military Whistleblower Protection Act (MWPA) appeal and DOD’s decision to designate the OUSD(P&R) Chief of Staff (Pasquale Tamburrino) as decisional authority for MWPA appeals.
- DOD identified and produced a subset of responsive materials compiled by the Office of Legal Policy (OLP), located and collected by Lt. Col. Ryan Oakley, and redacted portions under FOIA Exemptions 5 and 6.
- Rodriguez sued (Jan. 2014) challenging DOD’s denial of expedited processing and arguing the agency’s search was inadequate and its exemptions were improperly applied.
- DOD contended OLP was the proper and sole repository for responsive records and described Oakley’s manual and electronic searches; Rodriguez argued DOD unreasonably limited the search (omitting Chief of Staff office, Army Review Boards Agency servers, OGC) and used inadequate search terms/methods.
- The Court found DOD’s search scope unreasonably narrow (limiting search to OLP and not searching Tamburrino’s office) and its declaration insufficiently detailed about search methodology and search terms, and therefore ordered a new, adequate search.
- The Court declined to resolve the parties’ disputes over Exemptions 5 and 6 at this stage and permitted those issues to be reasserted after the new search/production.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of search scope | Search was too narrow; DOD should have searched Tamburrino’s office, Army Review Boards Agency, OGC, and other likely locations | OLP is responsible for packaging/maintaining MWPA appeal materials, so searching OLP sufficed | Court: DOD unreasonably limited search to OLP; must search additional, obvious locations (search denied as inadequate) |
| Search methodology & terms | Oakley used narrow/inadequate electronic search terms, failed to describe manual file review; searches were ad hoc and piecemeal | Oakley personally located and compiled the documents and searched physical files, share drives, and certain email accounts with specific terms | Court: Oakley’s declaration lacks sufficient detail (databases searched, search terms for non-email files, manual-file procedures); methods not shown reasonably calculated to find all responsive records |
| Withholdings under FOIA Exemptions 5 & 6 | Redactions not justified; deliberative-process/privilege and privacy balancing improperly asserted | Redactions reflect pre-decisional privileged advice (Exemption 5) and private information (Exemption 6) | Court: Did not decide on exemptions now; withheld as-yet unresolved and may be litigated after new search/production |
| Denial of expedited processing | Expedited processing denial was challenged | DOD denied expedited processing for lack of compelling due-process loss showing | Court: The main relief granted concerns inadequate search; expedited-processing dispute effectively not resolved in this opinion (search remedy ordered) |
Key Cases Cited
- Oglesby v. U.S. Dep’t of Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (agency cannot limit search to one system when others likely contain responsive records)
- Campbell v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 164 F.3d 20 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (reasonableness of FOIA search judged by methods used, not results)
- Valencia-Lucena v. U.S. Coast Guard, 180 F.3d 321 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (agency must search places it has reason to know may contain responsive documents)
- Conservation Force v. Ashe, 979 F. Supp. 2d 90 (D.D.C. 2013) (agency should undertake broad search for administrative record; inadequate-search principles)
- Steinberg v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 23 F.3d 548 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (affidavits must specify what records were searched, by whom, and by what process)
- SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. S.E.C., 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (agency affidavits receive presumption of good faith)
- Founding Church of Scientology v. Nat’l Sec. Agency, 610 F.2d 824 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (substantial doubt about adequacy of search precludes summary judgment for agency)