Am. Small Bus. League v. OMB, No. 20-07126, 2022 WL 4544726 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2022) (Ryu, Mag. J.)

Am. Small Bus. League v. OMB, No. 20-07126, 2022 WL 4544726 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2022) (Ryu, Mag. J.)

Re:  Request for “‘[a]ny and all documents indicating or containing the total federal acquisition budget for FY 2017, FY 2018, and FY 2019’”

Disposition:  Granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment; denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment

• Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search & Procedural Requirements, Searching for Responsive Records:  The court holds that “[plaintiff] has not presented any evidence that overcomes the presumption of good faith afforded to the declarations submitted by OMB.”  “[Defendant’s] declarations are reasonably detailed and non-conclusory and establish that OMB conducted an adequate search that was reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents.”  The court relates that “[defendant] states she began the search for responsive documents by conducting a ‘custodial inquiry’ for responsive documents.”  “These individuals concluded that OMB does not have data showing the total federal acquisition budget for fiscal years 2017 through 2019 because it does not collect, track, or maintain that information in the normal course of business.”  Additionally, the court notes that defendant stated that “‘[w]hile some of the appropriations that are requested by the President may be used for acquisition, the President’s Budget does not specifically request appropriation amounts specifically for acquisition; nor is such a breakdown mandated by law.’”  “[Plaintiff] does not dispute the budget process as set forth in OMB’s opening brief and [its] declaration . . . .”  “Instead, [plaintiff] maintains that OMB failed to perform an adequate search in response to its FOIA request because it construed the term ‘total federal acquisition budget’ too narrowly.”  “It argues that OMB ‘has been unwilling to accept [plaintiff’s] interpretations of the terms “total federal acquisition budget” and “acquisition”’ and unwilling to conduct searches to include these definitions.”  “According to [plaintiff], OMB failed to work with [plaintiff] to ‘help [plaintiff] reasonably describe records’ and determine alternative search terms.”  The court finds that “[plaintiff’s] interpretation of its FOIA request has been a moving target.”  “Its counsel’s communications to OMB about the request have been internally inconsistent and/or confusing.”  “[Plaintiff] does not address, explain, or otherwise attempt to harmonize the various positions it has taken on the request.”  “[Plaintiff’s] original request was for ‘the total federal acquisition budget’ for specified years.”  “Notwithstanding the fact that it later narrowed the request to encompass ‘the acquisition budget’ for a single agency (DoD), it continuously maintained that it sought budget information until well after it filed its complaint, when it shifted the request to encompass ‘the total value of all prime contract awards’ in March 2021 and took the position in October 2021 that the request included ‘spending for both goods and services.’”  “The plain language of the request (and its subsequent clarification) unambiguously seeks only budget-related information, not spending information.”  “It also seeks ‘the total’ budget for acquisitions, not records ‘indicating or containing information about the budget.’”