Gahagan v. DOJ, No. 13-5526, 2015 WL 3892866 (E.D. La. June 24, 2015) (Engelhardt, J.)

Gahagan v. DOJ, No. 13-5526, 2015 WL 3892866 (E.D. La. June 24, 2015) (Engelhardt, J.)

Re: Request for records concerning complaint filed with Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board, on or around June 5, 2013, by EOIR Disciplinary Counsel

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

• Litigation Considerations, Vaughn Index/Declaration:  The court holds that, "to the extent Plaintiff's motion requests additional explanation from ICE in the form of a Vaughn Index," that portion of plaintiff's motion is denied.  The court explains that although "[d]efendant ICE did not provide the Court or Plaintiff with a separate document labeled 'Vaughn Index,'" "the additional information and documents provided in response to the Court's previous Order and Reasons satisfy ICE's obligation relative to a Vaughn Index."  "The Court is able to derive from [ICE's] declaration an explanation as to why ICE contends that each redacted portion is exempt from disclosure."  "Additionally, any allegedly inadequate explanations provided by ICE are sufficiently supplemented by the unredacted documents supplied to the Court for in camera inspection."
   
• Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search:  The court holds that "[h]aving carefully reviewed the supplemental information provided by the Defendants, the Court finds it helpful, but still not entirely sufficient."  "Specifically, [ICE's] declaration states that no paper or hard-copy filing systems were searched because ICE employees 'determined, based on their knowledge of how records were maintained in their office, that such search would not be likely to locate any responsive records.'"  The court finds that "[t]his explanation is overly conclusory, and fails to provide the Court with sufficient information to evaluate the adequacy of ICE's search."  Additionally, the court finds that "[EOIR's] second declaration likewise is inadequate because it states that EOIR's search was limited to the employee determined to be the 'most likely source' of responsive records" and "[a] reasonable search should account for sources that are 'likely' to have responsive documents."  "On the other hand, the Court rejects Plaintiff's contention that Defendants are required to disclose to him the full names of the employees who performed the FOIA searches."
   
• Exemption 5, Deliberative Process Privilege:  "Considering the additional information provided," and following an in camera review, "the Court agrees with Defendant ICE that Exemption (b)(5) applies because the redacted information is protected by the deliberative process privilege."