Wisdom v. United States Trustee Program
2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5280
D.D.C.2017Background
- Allen L. Wisdom filed FOIA requests with the Executive Office for the United States Trustees (EOUST/USTP) seeking records related to his Chapter 7 bankruptcy and trustee Jeremy Gugino’s oversight. Requests were tracked as 2015-2053, 2016-2003, and 2016-2033.
- EOUST used a two-stage "rolling" search: first searching Boise (stage one), then other UST offices (stage two). Wisdom paid fees and received three partial, redacted releases over many months and then sued for improper withholdings and delays.
- Wisdom filed suit in Oct. 2015 after delays; the suit challenged adequacy of searches, redactions under FOIA Exemptions 5, 6, and 7(E), and segregability. Parties cross-moved for summary judgment.
- The agency relied on declarations of Joseph Carilli describing searches and exemption claims; Wisdom argued those declarations lacked personal knowledge and that searches were inadequate.
- The Court found issues of material fact as to adequacy of searches for 2015-2053 and 2016-2003 and held the 2016-2033 search to be inadequate (ordering a new search).
- On exemptions: the Court granted partial judgment to the agency for withholding complainants’ names and other personal data and for performance evaluations of trustees other than Gugino; it denied agency justification for most Exemption 5 withholdings, found work-product claims insufficiently described, ordered in camera review of Gugino’s evaluations, and rejected agency's 7(E) showing in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies for stage-two (2016-2033) | Wisdom: stage-two was part of original 2015-2053; he constructively exhausted when he sued after agency delay | USTP: 2016-2033 was a new request; Wisdom failed to administratively appeal that release | Court: exhaustion defense rejected — stage-two was treated as part of 2015-2053 when suit filed; constructive exhaustion applies |
| Adequacy of searches (2015-2053 & 2016-2003) | Wisdom: searches were incomplete and inadequately described | USTP: searches conducted by relevant staff over shared drives, files, and hard copies | Court: genuine issues of material fact; agency failed to aver it searched all locations likely to contain responsive records; agency must explain or re-search |
| Adequacy of search (2016-2033 — other UST offices) | Wisdom: sought documents outside Boise; continuation of original request | USTP: conducted searches and produced documents | Court: search inadequate for Region 18 office; summary judgment for Wisdom on that limited score and agency must renew search |
| Exemption 5 (deliberative process and work product) | Wisdom: redactions improper; seeks disclosure | USTP: withheld deliberative documents and work product prepared in anticipation of litigation | Court: agency failed to describe withheld documents with sufficient detail; Exemption 5 justifications denied at this stage; genuine issues remain for work-product claims |
| Exemption 6 (privacy of complainants, trustee evaluations) | Wisdom: identities and evaluations should be disclosed | USTP: redacted complainants’ names and trustee performance reviews to protect privacy | Court: upheld withholding of complainants’ names and other third-party personal data; upheld withholding of other trustees’ evaluations; ordered in camera review for Gugino’s evaluations because public interest may outweigh privacy |
| Exemption 7(E) (law-enforcement techniques/guidelines) | Wisdom: agency did not show risk of circumvention or law-enforcement purpose | USTP: redactions protected techniques for detecting fraud and referrals to AUSAs/AUSTs | Court: agency showed risk of circumvention for some redactions but failed to establish that all withheld material was compiled for law-enforcement purposes; 7(E) justification insufficient as presented |
| Segregability | Wisdom: agency failed to disclose reasonably segregable information | USTP: provided Vaughn indices and line-by-line justifications for certain redactions | Court: for Exemption 6 redactions that were sustained, agency met segregability obligations; for other withholdings agency must provide more detail and may need to disclose segregable material |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary-judgment standard and genuine-dispute concept)
- Oglesby v. Department of the Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (FOIA exhaustion and requirement that affidavits aver searches of all likely files)
- SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (presumption of agency good faith in FOIA affidavits)
- Military Audit Project v. Casey, 656 F.2d 724 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (agency affidavits can support summary judgment in FOIA if specific and not controverted)
- Department of Justice v. Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. 136 (FOIA places burden on agency to justify withholdings)
- Department of the Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352 (1976) (FOIA’s purpose to expose agency action to public scrutiny)
- Valencia-Lucena v. Coast Guard, 180 F.3d 321 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (standard for adequacy of FOIA searches)
- Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press v. Department of Justice, 489 U.S. 749 (FOIA public-interest test and privacy considerations)