Tereshchuk v. Bureau of Prisons
67 F. Supp. 3d 441
D.D.C.2014Background
- Tereshchuk sought broad FOIA access to ARP records from BOP, with many records withheld.
- BOP ultimately provided electronic indexes from 2000–2013 with inmate names and register numbers redacted.
- ARP details: inmates may pursue informal and formal remedies; responses and indexes must be accessible by Remedy ID numbers.
- Tereshchuk accuses BOP of producing heavily redacted indexes and seeks more detailed indexes and all ARP responses to expose patterns.
- Plaintiff asserts FOIA, APA, and constitutional claims seeking injunctive and declaratory relief; court grants summary judgment for BOP.
- Judicial posture: the court resolves the FOIA record by granting summary judgment for the government on multiple grounds and dismissing the suit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Exemption 6 redactions achieve a permissible privacy/public interest balance | Tereshchuk argues redactions hinder usefulness of indexes | BOP contends privacy interests outweigh public interest | Exemption 6 valid; redactions upheld |
| Whether the provided indexes are sufficiently specific and complete | Tereshchuk seeks more detailed/new index | BOP need not create non-existent records; existing indexes suffice | Indexes properly provided; no duty to create new index |
| Whether ARP responses are reading-room records subject to automatic public access | Reading-room disclosure required for ARP records | ARP responses are non-adversarial, non-precedential; not reading-room records | Reading-room records claim rejected; not precedential working law |
| Whether APA and constitutional claims are cognizable where FOIA provides relief | Requests relief under APA/Constitution for FOIA withholding | FOIA provides exclusive remedy; APA/Constitution claims barred | APA/Constitution claims precluded; FOIA governs |
| Whether Tereshchuk complied with BOP procedures by identifying records by Remedy ID | Requests were for all responses identified in indexes | Procedural noncompliance due to request language | Dismissal for failure to identify by Remedy ID; BOP could provide if later requested by index |
Key Cases Cited
- Washington Post Co. v. Dept. of State, 456 U.S. 595 (U.S. 1982) (privacy interests in personal data; Exemption 6)
- DOJ v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (U.S. 1989) (public interest limited to governmental activities)
- Yeager v. DEA, 678 F.2d 315 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (agency not required to create new records; detail sufficiency)
- Goland v. CIA, 607 F.2d 339 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (overbreadth and burden on search; page-by-page specifics)
- Forsham v. Califano, 587 F.2d 1128 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (relevance of agency statements in FOIA context)
- Int'l Counsel Bureau v. U.S. Dep't of Defense, 723 F. Supp. 2d 54 (D.D.C. 2010) (burden and justification for production of records)
- NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132 (U.S. 1975) (FOIA disclosure philosophy; not directly cited here but underlying principle)