Smith v. United States Department of Justice
987 F. Supp. 2d 43
D.D.C.2013Background
- Plaintiff Richard A. Smith, Jr. filed a FOIA suit (against DOJ components including DEA and ATF) seeking records relating to investigations/prosecutions of him (requests dated Nov. 16, 2009).
- DEA located and processed responsive criminal-investigative records, releasing 34 pages in whole or part, withholding 35 pages, and referring additional pages to other components; it relied on FOIA exemptions 2, 7(C), 7(D), 7(E), and 7(F).
- ATF searched for an investigative file (1995–2002), reported the file was likely inadvertently destroyed, produced 13 computerized pages with redactions under exemptions 3, 5, 6, 7(C), and 7(E).
- Plaintiff failed to file oppositions to the agencies’ summary judgment motions and the court treated those motions as conceded; plaintiff later sought relief but never submitted a proposed opposition or contrary evidence.
- The D.C. Circuit vacated and remanded for the district court to address the 2010 amendments to Rule 56 and explain the reasons for granting or denying summary judgment.
- On remand, the district court reviewed the unopposed agency declarations/Vaughn indices, found searches adequate, exemptions properly applied, and concluded DEA and ATF satisfied disclosure obligations; summary judgment entered for defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of agency searches for responsive records | Sought all records relating to investigations/prosecutions of him (implied challenge) | DEA and ATF submitted declarations showing reasonably adequate, good-faith searches and that only located records were produced | Searches were adequate; summary judgment for agencies |
| Validity of asserted FOIA exemptions and segregability | Plaintiff offered no evidence contesting exemptions or segregability | Agencies provided declarations/Vaughn index supporting withholding and that all reasonably segregable information was released | Exemptions applied appropriately; withheld material lawful and segregable released |
| Effect of plaintiff’s failure to respond after Rule 56 amendments/local rules | Plaintiff sought additional time after judgment but did not supply opposing evidence | Agencies relied on Rule 56 and Local Rule authority; movants’ factual assertions accepted absent contrary evidence | Under amended Rule 56 and Local Rules, failure to produce evidence is a valid basis to grant summary judgment; treatment as conceded appropriate |
| Agency referrals and inter-component processing of records | Plaintiff impliedly sought records from multiple DOJ components | Agencies explained proper referrals (DEA referred pages to EOUSA, FBI, Marshals) and processing responsibilities | Referrals were proper; recipient components were authorized to process records; no FOIA violation shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Fox v. Strickland, 837 F.2d 507 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (notice requirements when a pro se litigant faces dispositive motions)
- Neal v. Kelly, 963 F.2d 453 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (procedural protections for pro se litigants in civil litigation)
- Murray v. District of Columbia, 52 F.3d 353 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (standards for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b))
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (Sup. Ct. 1986) (nonmoving party’s burden to show genuine dispute on an essential element)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (Sup. Ct. 1986) (definition of materiality and genuine dispute for summary judgment)
- Military Audit Project v. Casey, 656 F.2d 724 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (affidavits/declarations may support FOIA summary judgment where detailed and uncontroverted)
- SafeCard Services, Inc. v. S.E.C., 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (presumption of agency good faith in FOIA affidavits; speculative claims insufficient)
- Ground Saucer Watch, Inc. v. C.I.A., 692 F.2d 770 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (limits on rebutting agency declarations in FOIA cases)
- Bush v. District of Columbia, 595 F.3d 384 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (nonmoving party’s burden to produce admissible evidence establishing a genuine issue of material fact)
- Grimes v. District of Columbia, 923 F. Supp. 2d 196 (D.D.C. 2013) (analysis reconciling 2010 Rule 56 amendments with local rules that deem summary judgment motions conceded)