Sharkey v. U.S. Department of Justice, 5:16-cv-02672

Pro se plaintiff John J. Sharkey filed a FOIA/Privacy Act suit against the Department of Justice/FBI seeking records about alleged tampering at his workplace and purported surveillance and interference with his efforts to hire counsel and collect SEC whistleblower bounties.
Sharkey submitted two FOIA requests (Mar. 25, 2016 and July 26, 2016) that the FBI searched using its Central Records System (CRS) indices via ACS/UNI and Sentinel name-based and phonetic queries; searches returned no main-file records responsive to the requests.
Sharkey administratively appealed both denials to DOJ OIP; OIP affirmed the FBI’s searches as adequate.
After this lawsuit was filed, the FBI voluntarily performed an additional CRS search and produced 26 pages of non-responsive-but-related records, redacting portions under FOIA Exemptions 6, 7(C), and 7(E).
DOJ moved for summary judgment arguing the FBI made reasonable, good-faith searches and properly withheld/redacted exempt information; Sharkey did not oppose. The district court granted summary judgment for DOJ and dismissed the case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adequacy of FBI search for responsive records	Sharkey contends relevant records exist showing tampering and surveillance (implicitly: FBI failed to find them)	FBI/DOJ: name-based, phonetic, and identifier searches of CRS/ACS/UNI/Sentinel were reasonably calculated to locate responsive records; OIP affirmed	Court: FBI met FOIA search obligations; searches were adequate and made in good faith
Administrative exhaustion / appeals	Sharkey pursued OIP appeals	DOJ: OIP affirmed FBI responses; proper administrative route followed	Court: OIP decisions stand; no defect in exhaustion for the adjudicated requests
Withholding/redaction under Exemptions 6 and 7(C)	Sharkey did not meaningfully challenge redactions in this case	DOJ: redactions protected personal identifying info of agents/personnel and privacy interests in investigatory records	Court: redactions under Exemption 7(C) (and 6 implicitly) were proper; privacy interests outweigh public interest
Withholding under Exemption 7(E) (law-enforcement techniques/databases)	Sharkey did not present evidence contesting withholding	DOJ: disclosure would reveal non-public database indicators, techniques, and locations that risk circumvention or cyberattack	Court: Exemption 7(E) applied; withholding justified to avoid risk of circumvention of law/enforcement compromise

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (summary judgment evidence viewed for non-movant)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (materiality/genuine dispute standard)
Rugiero v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 257 F.3d 534 (agency bears burden to show adequacy of FOIA search)
SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. S.E.C., 926 F.2d 1197 (agency affidavits entitled to presumption of good faith)
U.S. Dep’t of Justice v. Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. 136 (plaintiff must produce specific facts to challenge withholding)
Rimmer v. Holder, 700 F.3d 246 (government must show good-faith, reasonable search effort in FOIA cases)
Blackwell v. F.B.I., 646 F.3d 37 (Exemption 7(E) requires logical demonstration of risk of circumvention)