Flores v. DOJ, No. 17-0036, 2019 WL 3491226 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2019) (Koeltl, J.)

Flores v. DOJ, No. 17-0036, 2019 WL 3491226 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2019) (Koeltl, J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning speeches made by former United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York Preet Bharara

Disposition:  Granting defendant's motion for summary judgment

• Litigation Considerations, Vaughn Index & Declaration:  First, the court holds that "[a]lthough the declarants were not personally involved in every part of the defendant's search, the declarations sufficiently establish the declarants' personal knowledge of the relevant FOIA procedures and the search."  Second, the court holds that, "although the defendant need not have listed any records withheld as nonresponsive in its Vaughn index, doing so does not require the release of such records or any further justification of their withholding."  "The fact that a responsive record is redundant does not render it nonresponsive."  "And the allegedly redundant records likely stem from the defendant's attempt to accommodate the plaintiff's complaint that he could not access all the documents in the first release of records, or the plaintiff's own request for additional copies."  "The plaintiff's second argument also fails."  "The defendant's voluntary production of records – made after it provided the plaintiff with the Vaughn index – did not involve any withholdings based on a FOIA exemption."  "Therefore, it was unnecessary to make any revisions to the Vaughn index that the plaintiff possessed."
   
• Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search:  The court addresses plaintiffs arguments and finds that "plaintiff provides nothing other than his own speculation that records relating to the three speeches exist, and such speculation cannot rebut the validity of the declarations."  "[P]laintiff further argues that because the defendant executed a voluntary search after filing its summary judgment motion, and located additional responsive records, its initial search was necessarily inadequate."  "But, if anything, the fact that the defendant voluntarily undertook another search highlights the defendant’s good faith in carrying out the plaintiff's request."