Skip to main content

Coffey v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., No. 16-508, 2017 WL 1411465 (D.D.C. Apr. 20, 2017) (Boasberg, J.)

Date

Coffey v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., No. 16-508, 2017 WL 1411465 (D.D.C. Apr. 20, 2017) (Boasberg, J.)

Re: Request for communications between officials and private-citizen participants in Wild Horse and Burro Program

 

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

  • Fees and Fee Waivers, Fees: The court finds that, "[a]lthough [plaintiff's] concerns about the length of time that BLM retained her processing fees [(a year and a half)] are understandable, . . . the Court concludes that the no-interest rule forecloses her argument [that defendant "'fail[ed] to return [her] processing fees with interest'"] here." "[The court] consequently holds that [plaintiff], having been repaid in full by Defendant, cannot recover additional reimbursement in the form of $6.81 in interest." The court explains that "[d]efendant correctly points out that FOIA does not expressly waive the government's sovereign immunity with respect to interest."
     
  • Procedural Requirements, Searching for Responsive Records: "[T]he Court cannot conclude that a search using neither names nor email addresses, and instead using the facilities' locations and contracting-related terms, is adequate to pass muster under FOIA's standard of reasonableness." The court finds that, "as Plaintiff points out, the words and phrases BLM searched for are largely related to contracting." "But [plaintiff] did not limit the scope of her request solely to the Bureau's contracting activities; rather, she sought [two BLM employees'] communications with certain individuals at each facility." "In addition, [the court finds that ]the alternative approach Plaintiff proffers – that is, using search terms based on the names and email addresses of the contractors and 'managers/key personnel' at each facility, as well as the names of the facilities – seems eminently reasonable." The court points out that defendant does not "explain[] why the location format it used would be likely to turn up responsive records[]" and, "[i]n addition, it seems unlikely that location keywords, even if differently formatted, would be well-suited to finding records here." "Put another way, it is doubtful that the individuals at each facility would continually refer to their own locations while exchanging routine correspondence." "[A]lthough the Court is hesitant to 'second guess' BLM's selection of search terms, . . . it cannot agree that the Bureau's choice here was reasonable." "The Court, accordingly, holds that Defendant must choose a different set of keywords – e.g., the names and email addresses of individuals affiliated with each holding facility – and conduct its search again."

    Responding to plaintiff's other objections regarding the search, however, the court finds that "[defendant's] Declarations identify the entity that conducted the search . . ., as well as what terms and timeframes were used to search which files." "Had Defendant used adequate search terms, this would have been more than sufficient for it to meet its summary-judgment burden here[.]" "The Court [also] concludes that any 'failure [by BLM] to identify' the database and software involved in its search, . . . does not preclude summary judgment in its favor." Last, the court finds that "[n]othing prevents Plaintiff from seeking [the two BLM employees'] phone records in a subsequent FOIA request, but she plainly cannot stake a claim to those records based on her [instant] request – at least, not at this late juncture[]" when "[plaintiff's] FOIA request never mentioned phone records."
Court Decision Topic(s)
District Court opinions
Fees and Fee Waivers
Procedural Requirements, Searching for Responsive Records
Updated December 14, 2021