Skip to main content

Elgabrowny v. CIA, No. 17-00066, 2020 WL 1451580 (D.D.C. Mar. 25, 2020) (Chutkan, J.)

Date

Elgabrowny v. CIA, No. 17-00066, 2020 WL 1451580 (D.D.C. Mar. 25, 2020) (Chutkan, J.)

Re:  Granting defendant's renewed motion for summary judgment; denying plaintiff's motion for in camera inspection

Disposition:  Request for records concerning plaintiff's prosecution, as well as other prosecutions

  • Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search:  "[T]he court finds the searches to have been adequate and reasonable."  The court finds that "EOUSA has submitted declarations, authored by individuals with authority and detailed personal knowledge, establishing that the searches were reasonable and adequate."  "The affiants clearly (1) identify the sources and locations searched; (2) explain why the relevant information, if possessed, would be stored in those sources and locations; (3) pinpoint the personnel involved with the searches; and (4) define the methodology, timeline, and scope of the searches.  In addition to being reasonably detailed, the declarations appear to have been made in good faith."  The court relates that "Plaintiff argues that EOUSA must be intentionally concealing [an exhibit that he requested] because the document exists on the U.S. v. Elgabrowny case docket."  "However, [the court finds that] merely because a document exists, or once existed, does not mean that EOUSA possesses it, and '[a]n agency's failure to find a particular document does not necessarily indicate that its search was inadequate.'"
     
  • Litigation Considerations, In Camera Inspection:  "[T]he court finds there is no basis to conduct an in camera review."  "EOUSA submitted detailed declarations, made in good faith, and a review of its search slips or processing notes is thus unnecessary and contrary to judicial economy."
Court Decision Topic(s)
District Court opinions
Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search
Litigation Considerations, In Camera Inspection
Updated May 1, 2020