Case Information
*1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA _________________________________________
)
ALVIN DORSEY, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) v. ) Civil Action No. 12-0534 (EGS) )
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR UNITED )
STATES ATTORNEYS, )
)
Defendant. )
_________________________________________ )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. For the reasons discussed below, the motion will be granted in part and denied in part without prejudice.
I. BACKGROUND
On or about June 16, 2011, Compl. at 2, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), see 5 U.S.C. § 552, plaintiff submitted to the Executive Officе for United States Attorneys (“EOUSA”) a request for “[s]urveillance video, video logs, handwritten call logs, warrants D.E.A.-6, promises, agreements and any infоrmation that is required to be released under [FOIA].” Def.’s Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J., Decl. of David Luczynski (“Luczunski Decl.”), Ex. A (FOIA request). With his request plaintiff suрplied a Certificate of Identity. See id. , Ex. A (Certification of Identity). EOUSA staff determined that any responsive records would have been maintainеd in the United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Florida (“USAO/FLM”), and, accordingly, the request was forwarded to *2 that office. Luczynski Decl. ¶ 10. Once a search for responsive records commenced, “it became apparent that due to the number of recоrds [and] the time spent searching,” there would be a fee assessed for the processing of plaintiff’s request. Id. ¶ 6. The EOUSA so informed plaintiff, see id. , Ex. C (Letter to plaintiff from Susаn B. Gerson, Acting Assistant Director, Freedom of Information and Privacy Staff, EOUSA, dated July 18, 2001) at 1, and plaintiff paid the fees in two installments. Compl. at 2; see id. , Ex. B (Letters to Sean J. Vanek from plaintiff).
Thе EOUSA released 63 pages of records in full, released 2 pages of records in part, and withheld approximately 1500 pages in full, рursuant to Exemptions 3, 5, 7(C) and 7(F). Luczynski Decl. ¶ 9; see id. , Ex. G (Letter to plaintiff from S.B. Gerson dated June 21, 2012) at 1. In addition, the EOUSA referred certain records to the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the DOJ components from which they originated. Id. ¶ 9. According to plaintiff, howеver, the EOUSA “failed to release the 63 pages in full, and the 2 pages in part as the defendant claim[s] to have done.” Pl.’s Opp’n Mot. to Def.’s Summ. J. at 1. As of the filing of his opposition, plaintiff had not received the documents. Id.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Summary Judgment in a FOIA Case
In a FOIA action to compel production оf agency records, the agency “is entitled to
summary judgment if no material facts are in dispute and if it demonstrates ‘that each doсument
that falls within the class requested either has been produced . . . or is wholly exempt from the
[FOIA’s] inspection requirements.’”
Students Against Genocide v. Dep’t of State
,
B. The Search for Responsive Records Was Reasonable
Upon receipt of a request under the FOIA, an agency generally must search its records for
resрonsive documents.
See
5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A). “The adequacy of an agency’s search is
measured by a standard of reasonableness and is depеndent upon the circumstances of the case.”
Weisberg v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice
,
The EOUSA’s declarant explains that “[e]ach United States Attorney’s Office maintains the case files for criminal matters prosecuted by that office.” Luczynski Decl. ¶ 10. ‘“LIONS’. . . is the cоmputer system used by United States Attorneys offices to track cases and to retrieve files pertaining to cases and investigations.” Id. Using LIONS, оne “can access databases which can be used to retrieve information based on a defendant’s name, the USAO number (United Stаtes[] Attorney’s Office internal administrative number), and the district court case number.” Id. Using plaintiff’s name as a search term, a LIONS search located records maintained in the USAO/FLM. Id. According to the declarant, “[a]ll responsive documents to [p]laintiff’s FOIA request would have beеn located in the USAO/FLM,” and “no other records systems or locations within EOUSA or DOJ in which other files pertaining to Plaintiff’s name were maintained.” Id.
Plаintiff does not address the EOUSA’s statements of fact with respect to its search for
responsive records, and, accordingly, the Court treats this argument as conceded.
See Day v.
D.C. Dep’t of Consumer & Regulatory Affairs
,
Based on plaintiff’s representation that he had not received copies of the documents purportedly released to him, the Court declines to proceed further at this time. Plaintiff will have an opportunity to review the records released by the EOUSA before the Court considers defendant’s arguments on the claimed exemptions and segregability.
III. CONCLUSION
The EOUSA demonstrates that its search for records responsive to plaintiff’s FOIA request was reasonable under the circumstances, and in this respect, its mоtion for summary judgment will be granted in part. Defendant will be ordered to send copies of the records previously released in full and in рart to plaintiff at his current address of record and at no cost to plaintiff. Further, defendant will be ordered to renew its motion for summary judgment, to which plaintiff will have an opportunity to respond.
An Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. DATE: March 1, 2013 EMMET G. SULLIVAN
United States District Judge