Bagwell v. DOJ, No. 15-00531, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169270 (D.D.C. Dec. 18, 2015) (Cooper, J.)

Bagwell v. DOJ, No. 15-00531, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169270 (D.D.C. Dec. 18, 2015) (Cooper, J.)

Re: Request for records concerning Pennsylvania State University child-sex-abuse scandal

Disposition: Deferring resolution of parties' motions for summary judgment; ordering defendant to file supplemental memorandum in support of its motion for summary judgment and allowing plaintiff opportunity to respond to defendant's supplemental memorandum

• Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search:  "The Court cannot conclude, based on the record before it, that DOJ's search for responsive records was adequate."  The court finds that, "[a]t present, DOJ has failed to demonstrate beyond material doubt that it has conducted a search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents."  The court finds that it "has no way of knowing . . . the method by which DOJ searched for and located . . . particular emails and thus cannot determine whether the search was likely to have captured all responsive emails."  Moreover, the court finds that "[w]hile 'an agency's failure to find a particular document does not necessarily indicate that its search was inadequate,' . . . in this instance the search's apparent failure to uncover any material [referenced in public statements] raises a legitimate question as to thoroughness of the search."
   
• Exemption 3:  The court holds that "DOJ has also failed adequately to justify its invocation of FOIA Exemption (b)(3), specifically as it relates to what DOJ labels 'grand jury material.'"  The court finds that "DOJ does provide some information on this front, but not enough" for the court to determine "that all 2,700 pages and 86 gigabytes of withheld material would reveal some secret aspect of the grand jury's proceedings or deliberations."
   
• Litigation Considerations, Vaughn Index/Declaration:  "Because the Court finds that DOJ's 'Vaughn Index and explanations of the withholdings are insufficient as a whole,' it cannot grant summary judgment for the agency."  The court finds that "[t]he four-page Vaughn Index DOJ submits is plainly insufficient."  "In addition to being exceptionally short, its descriptions of withheld documents are quite general and vague, and it links categories of withheld documents to corresponding FOIA exemptions in a purely conclusory manner."  "The affidavits, too, merely parrot the statutory standards that correspond to each exemption rather than provide any new detail."
•  
• Litigation Considerations, "Reasonably Segregable" Requirements:  "The Court lacks both an adequate 'Vaughn ind[ex] and copies of the redacted records,' . . . which limits its ability to find that 'all reasonably segregable records and portions of records have been released to [the] plaintiff[.]'"  "As a result, the Court is unable to make a segregability finding at this time."