Thomas v. U.S. Department of Justice
245 F. Supp. 3d 164
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Pro se plaintiff Ernest W. Thomas submitted a FOIA request to EOUSA for records relating to his D.C. Superior Court criminal case (identified by case number), seeking police reports, medical reports, and statements.
- EOUSA forwarded the request to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia (USAO/DDC); the USAO FOIA contact searched the LIONS case-management system and contacted the Assistant U.S. Attorney assigned to the case.
- EOUSA/DOJ produced certain records and submitted a Vaughn index and a declaration from David Luczynski to support its search and withholdings under FOIA exemptions 6 and 7(C).
- DOJ moved for summary judgment asserting its search was adequate and its withholdings proper; plaintiff did not file a supplemental opposition despite receiving an extension.
- The Luczynski declaration described the referral to USAO/DDC and general search steps but omitted specific search terms, files searched, methods used by the AUSA, and what responsive materials (if any) were identified by the AUSA.
- The court denied DOJ’s motion without prejudice because the declaration lacked sufficient detail to prove the search was reasonably calculated to locate all responsive records; the court suggested DOJ reexamine certain Exemption 6 and 7(C) withholdings and segregability determinations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DOJ conducted an adequate FOIA search | Thomas argues he sought records for his identified case and DOJ failed to produce all responsive records | DOJ contends EOUSA/USAO/DDC searched LIONS, queried the assigned AUSA, and located responsive documents | Searchadequacy: Denied — DOJ’s declaration lacks required detail to demonstrate a reasonably calculated search |
| Whether agency affidavits satisfy FOIA summary‑judgment standard | Thomas implicitly contends agency must show search details | DOJ relies on Luczynski declaration and Vaughn index to justify search and withholdings | Affidavitinsufficient: Declaration did not specify search terms, files searched, or methods used by the AUSA |
| Validity of withholdings under Exemptions 6 and 7(C) for specific documents | Thomas challenges withholding of certain records (e.g., expert CV, police notes) and redactions of names in public indictment | DOJ asserts privacy exemptions justify withholding/redactions | Withholdingsnot decided: Court did not rule on merits but urged DOJ to reassess redactions and segregability for Documents 1,3,5,10,11 |
| Whether relief should be final or relief without prejudice to renewal | Thomas seeks release of records | DOJ seeks summary judgment upholding search and withholdings | Remedy: Motion for summary judgment denied without prejudice; DOJ may renew by specified date |
Key Cases Cited
- Ancient Coin Collectors Guild v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 641 F.3d 504 (D.C. Cir.) (agency must show search was reasonably calculated to uncover all responsive documents)
- Perry v. Block, 684 F.2d 121 (D.C. Cir.) (agencies may rely on affidavits to explain FOIA search methods)
- Valencia‑Lucena v. U.S. Coast Guard, 180 F.3d 321 (D.C. Cir.) (declaration must detail search terms and files searched)
- DeBrew v. Atwood, 792 F.3d 118 (D.C. Cir.) (inadequate declaration when search terms and type of search not disclosed)
- Morley v. CIA, 508 F.3d 1108 (D.C. Cir.) (insufficient to identify only components; must describe search strategies of responsible components)