Schoenman v. Federal Bureau of Investigation
764 F. Supp. 2d 40
D.D.C.2011Background
- Schoenman, a political activist, sues the CIA under FOIA and the Privacy Act seeking records about himself.
- Court previously granted-partially summary judgment for CIA and denied part of Schoenman’s cross-motion, with a discrete issue about the CIA’s search for MSO and DO records.
- IMS directed searches to MSO and MSO/OS, treating other CIA units as unlikely to hold responsive records for Schoenman.
- Schoenman sought all index references; CIA did not produce them, prompting court instruction to explain failure.
- After supplemental submissions, court finds CIA’s searches of MSO and DO reasonably calculated to locate responsive records.
- Court grants CIA’s summary judgment on the MSO/DO search issue, denies Schoenman’s cross-motion, and rejects discovery requests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the MSO search reasonable? | Schoenman contends MSO search was inadequate. | CIA conducted informed, good-faith search of MSO databases. | Yes; search reasonable. |
| Was the DO search reasonable? | Schoenman argues DO search was insufficient. | DO search was reasonably calculated to uncover responsive records. | Yes; search reasonable. |
| Does failure to produce index references undermine adequacy? | Lack of index references undermines search adequacy. | FOIA does not require index documentation; other detailed declarations suffice. | No; not undermining; index refs not required. |
| Should Schoenman be entitled to discovery? | Discovery needed to challenge search. | Declarations are sufficiently detailed; discovery unnecessary. | Denied. |
| Were belated supplemental materials meritorious? | New materials show CIA search flaws. | New materials do not raise substantial doubt; reliance on declarations remains. | Rejected; no material change in result. |
Key Cases Cited
- Perry v. Block, 684 F.2d 121 (D.C.Cir. 1982) (affidavits detailing search scope suffice for FOIA compliance)
- Iturralde v. Comptroller of Currency, 315 F.3d 311 (D.C.Cir. 2003) (reasonableness standard; fruits of search not controlling)
- Weisberg v. U.S. Department of Justice, 705 F.2d 1344 (D.C.Cir. 1983) (adequacy hinges on reasonable search methods)
- Oglesby v. U.S. Dept. of Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C.Cir. 1990) (search only record systems likely to contain responsive documents)
- Steinberg v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 23 F.3d 548 (D.C.Cir. 1994) (what records were searched, by whom, and through what process)
- Budik v. Dep't of Army, 742 F. Supp. 2d 20 (D.D.C. 2010) (perfection not required; good-faith, reasonable search)