Crandell, III v. United States, No. 21-00050, 2022 WL 4564587 (W.D. Va. Sept. 29, 2022) (Dillon, J.)

Crandell, III v. United States, No. 21-00050, 2022 WL 4564587 (W.D. Va. Sept. 29, 2022) (Dillon, J.)

Re:  Requests for records concerning Economic Development Administration (“EDA”) grant from 1990s for development project in Hardy County, West Virginia

Disposition:  Granting defendant’s motion to dismiss; granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment; denying plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment

• Litigation Considerations, Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies:  The court holds that “[plaintiff] failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to [two requests]” because “[they were] submitted exceptionally late (at least three years late as to [one], and at least two years late as to [the other]) and to the wrong e-mail address.”  “Moreover, even assuming the complaint . . . met any form appeal requirements, it was incorrectly sent to the [wrong office], when [defendant’s] notice clearly instructed for appeals to be mailed to [the correct office].”
   
• Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search:  Regarding two other requests, the court finds that, “[f]or each request, EDA either produced responsive documents or provided a sensible explanation for why none existed (explanations which agencies are not required to provide).”  “[T]he Government has . . . ‘prove[n] the reasonableness of [EDA]’s search’ through [its] ‘relatively detailed, nonconclusory declarations . . . submitted in good faith,’ the allegations of which [plaintiff] has not genuinely disputed.”  “Because EDA’s searches in response to [these two requests] were ‘reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents,’ . . . the court will grant the Government’s motion for summary judgment as to [plaintiff’s] FOIA claims relating to those requests.”