Coffey v. BLM, No. 16-653, 2017 WL 4355924 (D.D.C. Sept. 29, 2017) (Sullivan, J.)

Coffey v. BLM, No. 16-653, 2017 WL 4355924 (D.D.C. Sept. 29, 2017) (Sullivan, J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning employees and individuals or organizations interested in purchasing wild horses or burros under agency's management

Disposition:  Staying further proceedings and holding in abeyance final ruling on parties' motions for summary judgment

• Procedural Requirements, Searching for Responsive Records:  First, the court relates that "[t]he Bureau produced documents that reference other specific, potentially responsive records that have not been produced."  The court notes that "[w]here 'specific records, photographs, or attachments are referenced in [an agency's] documents, it is no longer "mere speculation" that the files exist.'"  Second, "[t]o the extent the agency intends to argue that the attachments should be treated as separate 'records' from the emails to which they were attached, the Court rejects this approach."  "Many of the emails cited by [plaintiff] make explicit reference to, or include discussion of, the missing attachments."  "Although the Court need not adopt a per se rule that an email and its attachment must be treated as a single record, the Court finds that many of these attachments should reasonably be considered part and parcel of the email by which they were sent."  Third, regarding the search terms used, "[b]ased on the Bureau's representations, the Court concludes that the Bureau's decision not to use the term 'proposal' to search for records responsive to [plaintiff's] FOIA request was reasonably calculated to find responsive materials."  The court explains that "[defendant] has stated in his supplemental declaration that, although the agency did not search for the term 'proposal,' the terms that it did use were 'much broader and retrieved documents that were responsive to the request that did not include the word proposal.'"  Fourth, the court finds that "[plaintiff] identified a specific 'gap' in the Bureau's search – i.e., she points to 'additional locations, and additional email addresses' that should have been searched for responsive records."  The court finds that defendant "has not adequately explained which other offices were searched, the type of search performed, or the names of any custodians that were searched."  "Nor has the agency explained whether the additional custodians identified by [plaintiff] are likely to have responsive material and, if so, whether there is any practical obstacle to searching for those materials."