Chelmowski v. United States, No. 17-1394, 2021 WL 3077558 (D.D.C. July 21, 2021) (Boasberg, J.)
Date
Chelmowski v. United States, No. 17-1394, 2021 WL 3077558 (D.D.C. July 21, 2021) (Boasberg, J.)
Re: Four requests for a variety of records concerning plaintiff
Disposition: Granting defendant's motion for partial summary judgment
- Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search: The court holds that "[t]he search was . . . sufficient." "To begin, '[c]ourts in this District have repeatedly rejected the argument that an agency's [FOIA] declaration must identify the individuals, by name, who conducted the searches.'" "Second, the agency did provide the search terms, the email accounts searched, the locations of the search, and the date of the search." "It did so via several detailed affidavits describing the search process." "The results may not have been satisfactory to [plaintiff], but 'the adequacy of a FOIA search is generally determined not by the fruits of the search, but by the appropriateness of the methods used to carry out the search.'"
- Exemption 6: Regarding a "private cellphone number," the court finds that "[g]iven that protecting personal information – like a phone number – is directly related to Exemption 6's goal of preventing a 'clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,' the use of that exemption to block out the cellphone number is appropriate." "This is particularly so here because [plaintiff] has not indicated why the public has any interest in obtaining disclosure of the number." Separately, regarding "personal information of EPA employees," the court finds that "the use of Exemption 6 for [that information] was also both necessary and reasonable to protect their privacy, and [plaintiff] never argues otherwise."
- Exemption 5, Deliberative Process Privilege: Regarding various email chains, the court finds that "EPA made sure to lay out why the email chain[s] [were] deliberative and predecisional." "In addition to laying out why each redaction or withholding complies with Exemption 5, the EPA also detailed the foreseeable harm to the interests protected by the exemption that would ensue from release of the reserved information."
- Litigation Considerations, Vaughn Index/Declaration: The court finds that "[plaintiff] . . . gives little reason for the Court to doubt the truth of the EPA's Vaughn Index, especially given that '[a]gency affidavits are accorded a presumption of good faith.'"
- Litigation Considerations, Discovery: Regarding plaintiff's request for discovery, the court relates that "[plaintiff's] statements within his affidavit concerning lack of good faith are highly speculative and, in many respects, not even statements that are appropriate for an affidavit."
Court Decision Topic(s)
District Court opinions
Exemption 5
Exemption 5, Deliberative Process Privilege
Exemption 6
Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search
Litigation Considerations, Discovery
Litigation Considerations, Vaughn Index/Declarations
Updated November 5, 2021