Skip to main content

Hall v. BOP, No. 14-1082, 2015 WL 5675565 (D.D.C. Sept. 25, 2015) (Walton, J.)


Hall v. BOP, No. 14-1082, 2015 WL 5675565 (D.D.C. Sept. 25, 2015) (Walton, J.)

Re: Request for plaintiff's criminal indictment and judgment and commitment order

Disposition: Granting defendant's motion for summary judgment

  • Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search:  The court holds that while "[n]either the BOP’s nor the EOUSA’s declarant explains the method by which he or she searched for the records the plaintiff requested [,]" "the defendants demonstrate, and the plaintiff does not dispute, that a copy of his indictment and J & C have been located and released to the plaintiff."
  • Procedural Requirements, Responding to FOIA Requests:  In response to plaintiff's argument "that the defendants violated the FOIA by failing to identify the person who signed the indictment on behalf of the United States Attorney for the District of Utah, failing to verify that the person was authorized to do so, and by failing to produce a J & C bearing the court’s seal, the clerk’s signature, and execution by a United States Marshal," the court finds that "an agency is not obligated under the FOIA to provide answers to a requester’s questions."  "Nor must an agency offer explanations of responsive records."
  • Exemption 7(C):  "[T]he Court concludes that the EOUSA properly has withheld the foreperson’s identity under FOIA Exemption 7(C)."  The court relates that "EOUSA relies on FOIA Exemption 7(C) to withhold the Grand Jury foreperson’s signature."
Court Decision Topic(s)
District Court opinions
Exemption 7(C)
Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search
Procedural Requirements, Responding to FOIA Requests
Updated January 12, 2022