Walston v. United States Department of Defense
238 F. Supp. 3d 57
D.D.C.2017Background
- Plaintiff Linda P. Walston alleged a DISA employee hacked her personal computer (2010–2014) and filed a complaint with the DOD OIG, which DISA OIG investigated as case no. 2014-0193.
- Walston submitted a FOIA request to DISA for all records relating to DISA OIG complaint #2014-0193; DISA produced redacted investigatory materials and withheld portions under FOIA Exemptions 5 and 6.
- Walston appealed administratively and then sued DOD under FOIA, challenging primarily the adequacy of DISA OIG’s search for responsive records; she did not contest the asserted exemptions or segregability.
- DOD moved for summary judgment asserting it conducted an adequate search, properly applied Exemptions 5 (attorney-client/privilege) and 6 (privacy), and satisfied segregability.
- The court found DOD’s initial declaration deficient on search details, allowed DOD to supplement, but held the supplemental declaration still failed to state that all file locations likely to contain responsive records were searched and did not list all search terms.
- The court granted summary judgment for DOD as to Exemptions 5 and 6 and for segregability, but denied (without prejudice) summary judgment on adequacy of the search and required DOD to either conduct a new search or file a sufficiently detailed declaration and renewed motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of search for responsive DISA OIG records | Walston contends DISA OIG did not produce some emails with subject "Case #2014-0193" and the declarations lack who searched, where, and full search terms, so a genuine dispute exists | DOD supplied declarations saying DISA OIG searched its electronic database, shared drive, and investigators' email accounts using the case number and name "Walston" and that paper files were unlikely | Denied without prejudice. Supplemental declaration still failed to state that all files likely to contain responsive records were searched and did not list all search terms; DOD must re-search or provide a more detailed declaration and renewed motion |
| Exemption 5 (attorney-client privilege) | Walston did not dispute the exemption | DOD withheld an email exchange between a DISA investigator and DISA counsel as privileged legal advice | Granted. Court found communication sought and provided legal advice in confidence and fit Exemption 5 attorney-client privilege |
| Exemption 6 (personal privacy) | Walston did not demonstrate a public-interest justification to overcome privacy interests | DOD redacted names, contact info, signature blocks, and office locations of low-level DISA investigators as personal information in personnel/similar files | Granted. Court found the information fit Exemption 6 and plaintiff failed to show disclosure would serve FOIA's core public-interest purpose |
| Segregability | Walston did not contest segregability | DOD declared it reviewed and released all reasonably segregable information and described redactions | Granted. Court accepted the affidavit showing with reasonable specificity that non-exempt information was released |
Key Cases Cited
- Weisberg v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 705 F.2d 1344 (D.C. Cir.) (standard: agency must show search reasonably calculated to uncover relevant documents)
- Oglesby v. U.S. Dep’t of the Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir.) (agency affidavits must aver that all files likely to contain responsive materials were searched)
- Iturralde v. Comptroller of Currency, 315 F.3d 311 (D.C. Cir.) (adequacy judged by reasonableness of methods, not search results)
- SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir.) (agency declarations entitled to presumption of good faith if non-conclusory)
- Tax Analysts v. I.R.S., 117 F.3d 607 (D.C. Cir.) (Exemption 5 encompasses attorney-client privilege)
- Mead Data Cent., Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Air Force, 566 F.2d 242 (D.C. Cir.) (attorney-client privilege in governmental context)
- U.S. Dep’t of State v. Washington Post Co., 456 U.S. 595 (Sup. Ct.) (definition and scope of "similar files" under Exemption 6)
- Lepelletier v. FDIC, 164 F.3d 37 (D.C. Cir.) (Exemption 6 balancing: privacy interest vs. FOIA public-interest purpose)
- Armstrong v. Exec. Office of the President, 97 F.3d 575 (D.C. Cir.) (agency must show with reasonable specificity why documents cannot be further segregated)