Summary
ordering defendant to search for responsive records in several locations, including the files associated with the plaintiff's co-defendant
Summary of this case from Wheeler v. Executive Office of U.S. AttorneysOpinion
Civil Action No. 03-0915 (RBW).
March 29, 2005
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Defendant has filed a renewed motion for summary judgment in this case, which involves plaintiff's request under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552, for records relating to a forfeiture of a specific piece of real property in Richmond, Virginia. The Court earlier accepted defendant's concession that plaintiff had filed a request for these records in June 2001 and that the request was possibly destroyed during decontamination of a mail room. See Memorandum and Order issued December 15, 2003. At that time, defendant had advised the Court that it had referred plaintiff's request for processing to the appropriate Department of Justice ("DOJ") personnel, the Asset Forfeiture Management Staff.
On September 29, 2004, the Court denied defendant's motion for summary judgment since defendant failed to demonstrate that a sufficient search had been conducted for records responsive to the request by plaintiff. The Court ordered defendant to file a renewed motion for summary judgment or a report regarding the status of its search within 30 days. For the reasons set forth below, summary judgment is now issued for defendant. Background
Plaintiff's request pursuant to the FOIA in this case was for all records related to the forfeiture of the property at 3810 Moss Side Avenue, Richmond Virginia, the forfeiture having occurred in connection with plaintiff's criminal prosecution. The request states that the property was deeded to a non-profit organization after having been seized by the United States Marshal on October 30, 1991, pursuant to court order. Defendant's Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment ("Def's Mot."), Declaration of Kathy Hsu ("Hsu Decl."), Exhibit ("Ex.") 1. Plaintiff later clarified that he was seeking documents regarding the transfer of the property from the "Weed and Seed" program of the Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section ("AFMLS") of the DOJ to a non-profit organization. See Memorandum and Order, September 29, 2004.
In response to the Court's September 29, 2004 Order, the FOIA/Privacy Act Unit of the Criminal Division in the DOJ directed the AFMLS to conduct another search of its databases and files for information related to the Moss Side Avenue property, using the search terms James Butler, Irene Hughes, plaintiff's alleged cousin and co-defendant in his criminal proceeding, and the property's address. Hsu Decl. ¶ 8. AFMLS searched its two databases and no records were found responsive to plaintiff's FOIA request. Id. ¶ 10.
Plaintiff claims that the property at issue was forfeited under the Department of Justice's "Weed and Seed" Program on or about October 30, 1991. Id., Ex. 1. In 1994, active cases in that program were transferred to the AFMLS. Id. ¶ 13. Karen Vogel, an attorney in the AFMLS, searched the filing cabinets containing these cases for documents related to the Moss Side Avenue property. Id. Ms. Vogel did not find any such documents. Id. Ms. Vogel also conducted a search of training materials maintained by the AFMLS. Id. ¶ 14. Ms. Vogel found that attached to one of documents was a copy of a quitclaim deed for the Moss Side Avenue property. Id. The Department of Justice has forwarded that document to plaintiff. Id. ¶ 16.
Plaintiff's FOIA request sought the "main" files and "see references." Id., Ex. 1. In the September 29, 2004 Order, the Court held that defendant had not demonstrated that a search of "see references" had been made. According to the declaration provided by defendant in the present motion, the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice has no files "denominated or functionally equivalent to `see references'" Id. ¶ 17.
Discussion
Under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 (c); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Burke v. Gould, 286 F. 3d 513, 519-20 (D.C. Cir. 2002). Material facts are those that "might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322, 323-25.
FOIA cases are typically and appropriately decided on motions for summary judgment. Miscavige v. IRS, 2 F.3d 366, 368 (11th Cir. 1993); Rushford v. Civiletti, 485 F.Supp. 477, 481 n. 13 (D.D.C. 1980). In a FOIA case, the court may award summary judgment solely on the basis of information provided by the department or agency in affidavits or declarations. Military Audit Project v. Casey, 656 F.2d 724, 738 (D.C. Cir. 1981); see also Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820, 826-28 (D.C. Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 977 (1974). The sole issue in this case is whether defendant's search was adequate. When a plaintiff is challenging the results of an agency's search, in order to obtain summary judgment an agency must show, "viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the requester, that . . . [it] `has conducted a search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents.'" Steinberg v. United States Dep't of Justice, 23 F.3d 548, 552 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (quoting Weisberg v. United States Dep't of Justice, 745 F.2d 1476, 1485 (D.C. Cir. 1984)). To meet its burden, the agency may submit affidavits or declarations that explain in reasonable detail and in a non-conclusory fashion the scope and method of the agency's search. Perry v. Block, 684 F.2d 121, 126 (D.C. Cir. 1982). In the absence of contrary evidence, such affidavits or declarations are sufficient to demonstrate an agency's compliance with FOIA. Id. at 127. The agency must show that it made a "good faith effort to conduct a search for the requested records, using methods which can be reasonably expected to produce the information requested." Oglesby v. Dep't of the Army, 920 F.2d 57, 68 (D.C. Cir. 1990); see Campbell v. United States Dep't of Justice, 164 F.3d 20, 27 (D.C. Cir. 1998). In determining the adequacy of a FOIA search, the Court is guided by principles of reasonableness. Oglesby, 920 F.2d at 68.
It is apparent from the declaration submitted by the agency representative that defendant has made a "good faith effort to conduct a search for the requested records, using methods which reasonably can be expected to produce the information requested." Moore v. Aspin, 916 F.Supp. 32, 35 (D.D.C. 1996) (citing Oglesby v. Dep't of the Army, 920 F.2d at 68). Defendant searched all possible computer databases for the records requested and also performed manual searches. No more is required. In addition, plaintiff acknowledges receiving a copy of the quitclaim deed from defendant. See Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendant's Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment ¶ 3. Plaintiff also previously received 167 pages of documents from defendant. See Hsu Decl. ¶ 7. Therefore, defendant's search for plaintiff's requested records was adequate to fulfill defendant's obligations under the FOIA.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes defendant has complied with its obligations under the FOIA and plaintiff has received all available responsive documents. Therefore, the Court will grant defendant's renewed motion for summary judgment. A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.