Buzzfeed, Inc. v. DOJ, No. 19-3194, 2024 WL 3858544 (D.D.C. Aug. 19, 2024) (Kollar-Kotelly, J.)

Buzzfeed, Inc. v. DOJ, No. 19-3194, 2024 WL 3858544 (D.D.C. Aug. 19, 2024) (Kollar-Kotelly, J.)

Re:  Request for case file of United States v. Khanani, No. 15-CR-20468-MGC (S.D. Fla.), including communications sent or received by former U.S. Attorneys and Assistant U.S. Attorneys involved in the case

Disposition:  Granting in part and denying in part defendant’s motion for summary judgment; granting in part and denying in part plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment

• Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search:  Regarding the search for AUSA correspondence, the court relates that “[h]ere, Plaintiff’s FOIA request sought ‘any and all communications’ sent or received by [certain AUSAs] as it pertains to the Khanani case.”  “These AUSAs searched their email archives using search terms that included the case name, case number, and the two U.S. Attorneys . . . involved in the case.”  “They similarly searched their computer hard drives using ‘various permutations’ of those terms.”  “Although these searches appear reasonable, [defendant] does not explain what ‘various permutations’ were used by the AUSAs in conducting their search.”  “Without identifying the search terms utilized by the AUSAs, the Court cannot conclusively determine that Defendant’s search was reasonable.”  “Accordingly, the Court will direct Defendant to supplement the current record with additional information specifying the exact search terms used by the AUSAs.”
  
  “Plaintiff also takes issue with Defendant’s explanation of what occurred with [one AUSA’s] search for records.”  “However, [defendant] provided a reasonable explanation of how [the AUSA] initially ‘misinterpreted’ the request and searched for ‘case-specific documents, rather than searching through all of his work emails.’”  “In any event, [the AUSA] rectified his error by conducting another search.”  “To the extent Plaintiff suggests agency bad faith, the Court is not persuaded on this basis alone.”
  
  Regarding the search for U.S. Attorney correspondence, “the Court concludes that Defendant is entitled to summary judgment as to the adequacy of its search for [this] correspondence.”  The court relates that “[defendant] averred that ‘USAO-SDFL is no longer in possession of any official emails or documents pertaining to [the] former’ U.S. Attorneys [at issue].”  “[Defendant] again stated in a supplemental declaration that ‘the records and emails of former U.S. Attorneys are transferred to EOUSA and are retained by EOUSA and not USAO-SDFL.’”  “[Defendant] similarly stated that [EOUSA’s Office of the Chief Information Officer], not USAO-SDFL, maintains the records for the former U.S. Attorneys.”  The court finds that “Plaintiff’s contention that USAO-SDFL must have some records, . . . amounts to mere speculation and therefore is insufficient to rebut the presumption of good faith afforded to the agency’s declarations . . . .”  “Furthermore, Plaintiff fails to recognize that USAO-SDFL did conduct a search for responsive records of the former U.S. Attorneys.”  “Altogether, Defendant’s search for responsive records as it relates to the former U.S. Attorneys reflects a ‘good faith effort’ by the agency, ‘using methods which [could] be reasonably expected to produce the information requested.’”  “The Court therefore finds that its search was adequate in this regard.”
   
• Exemption 5; Exemption 6; Exemption 7(A); Exemption 7(C); Exemption 7(D); Exemption 7(F):  “Defendant withheld materials pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 5, 6, 7(A), 7(C), 7(D), and 7(F).”  “Plaintiff does not challenge the applicability of Exemptions 7(A), 7(D), and 7(F).”  “Accordingly, the Court shall grant summary judgment for Defendant as to those exemptions.”
   
• Litigation Considerations, Evidentiary Showing, Vaughn Index:  The court relates that, regarding several “remaining exemptions, Defendant withheld approximately 710 pages, and redacted portions of records, pursuant to Exemption 5, and Defendant withheld the Khanani case file pursuant to Exemptions 6 and 7(C).”  “Based on the current record, the Court finds that Defendant’s support for its FOIA exemptions suffers from a threshold lack of specificity.”  “[Defendant] offers broad explanations supporting the applicability of FOIA Exemptions 5, 6, and 7(C) to generalized categories of documents.”  “And Defendant has not provided another way for the Court to specifically connect any of the agency’s categorical justifications for a claimed FOIA exemption to any specific document or redaction.”  “As such, the agency’s ‘broad categorical descriptions’ within the current record do not allow the Court to ‘engag[e] in a meaningful review of the agency’s decision’ to withhold specific material under the agency’s claimed FOIA exemptions.”

• Litigation Considerations, Evidentiary Showing, “Reasonably Segregable” Showing:  “Because the Court will order Defendant to supplement the record to clarify its claimed FOIA exemptions, the Court finds it is premature to render a final determination on segregability at this time.”

• Litigation Considerations, Discovery:  The court denies plaintiff’s request for discovery.  The court relates that “[h]ere, Plaintiff’s request for limited discovery is based on its belief that Defendant’s declarations explaining its search process were deficient.”  “But if the Court deems the declarations of an agency deficient, then it may request that the agency supplement the record rather than order discovery.”  “As Defendant will be ordered to supplement its declarations, the Court sees no reason to grant Plaintiff’s request for discovery.”