Burke v. DHS, No. 16-1670, 2017 WL 3995528 (D.D.C. Sept. 8, 2017) (Moss, J.)

Burke v. DHS, No. 16-1670, 2017 WL 3995528 (D.D.C. Sept. 8, 2017) (Moss, J.)

Re:  Request for certain records concerning plaintiff's criminal case

Disposition:  Granting defendant's motion for summary judgment; denying plaintiff's motion for in camera review

• Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search:  The court holds that "[t]he declarations [provided by defendant] meet [the] standard."  "They describe where responsive records, if any, were likely to be found; they describe in detail the locations that were searched; they describe the electronic search terms; they explain that the Secret Service did not keep a complete set of the trial exhibits[ where some responsive documents might have been located]; and they demonstrate a level of diligence commensurate with the task."  "In short, the Secret Service's declarations describe the methodology employed to locate the records that [plaintiff] requested, explain who conducted the search and why, and note that '[a]ll files likely to contain responsive materials were searched.'"  "Even though the Secret Service's search efforts did not bear the 'fruit[ ]' that [plaintiff] was hoping to obtain, the 'appropriateness of [its] methods' cannot be faulted for that failure."
   
• Litigation Considerations, In Camera Inspection:  "Because [plaintiff] has made clear that it is the signature page that he seeks, and because the Secret Service has provided multiple declarations under the penalty of perjury attesting that it does not have that page, the Court concludes that there is no need for further explanation or for an in camera inspection."