Gahagan v. USCIS, No. 15-2540, 2015 WL 7777982 (E.D. La. Dec. 2, 2015) (Vance, J.)

Gahagan v. USCIS, No. 15-2540, 2015 WL 7777982 (E.D. La. Dec. 2, 2015) (Vance, J.)

Re: Request for records concerning plaintiff's client

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

• Litigation Considerations, Vaughn Index/Declaration:  "[T]he Court finds that [defendant's declarant] is competent to testify on the issues at hand, and it will not strike the [declarant's] declaration from the record."  The court explains that "[defendant's declarant] states that she is the Assistant Center Director for the FOIA Unit of the [National Records Center] and that she is personally familiar with USCIS’s standard process for responding to FOIA requests."  "[Defendant's declarant] also makes clear that she was responsible for overseeing and coordinating USCIS’s response to plaintiff’s FOIA request, and she attests to her familiarity with USCIS’s search for records responsive to that request."  "Finally, [defendant's declarant] states that 'the statements contained in this declaration are based on my personal knowledge, my review of relevant documents kept by USCIS in the course of ordinary business, and upon information provided to me by other USCIS employees in the course of my official duties.'"  "In sum, [defendant's declarant] attests to her active role in USCIS’s search for records responsive to plaintiff’s request, as well as her familiarity with both the search procedures that the agency used and the documents at issue."
   
• Procedural Requirements, Adequacy of Search:  "[T]he Court finds that USCIS has conducted a lawful search, using 'methods which can be reasonably expected to produce the information requested' in plaintiff’s FOIA request."  In response to plaintiff's request for his client's alien file, the court finds that "USCIS identifie[d] which records system it searched by name" and "avers that its search was reasonably designed to locate responsive documents."  Additionally, in response to plaintiff's request for notes and e-mails concerning applications and petitions concerning his client, the court finds that defendant "provide[d] each person’s name and describes where each one searched for responsive records, which search terms they used, and how many pages of documents they discovered."  The court finds that, "[c]ontrary to plaintiff’s assertion, [these] description[s] [are] neither vague nor conclusory."  "Because plaintiff fails to overcome the presumption of good faith, the Court accords [defendant's] declarations substantial weight in evaluating USCIS’s compliance with its FOIA obligations."
   
• Procedural Requirements, Consultations and Referrals:  "Because plaintiff’s only argument in favor of summary judgment is that referral of documents responsive to a FOIA request is per se unlawful, plaintiff’s motion is denied with respect to referral."  However, the court holds that "USCIS’s motion for summary judgment fails as well."  The court explains that "USCIS first argues that because it referred only four out of 592 responsive pages of documents in its possession, its referral does not constitute an improper withholding."  "The page count, however, is not dispositive."  "USCIS next contends that inter-agency referrals are 'quite common' and that in past cases in which USCIS has acquitted itself of a FOIA request by referral, the referred-to agency has processed and released the records in a timely manner."  "This argument is also unavailing."  "[T]he issue is whether USCIS’s referral procedure significantly delays or impairs plaintiff’s ability to obtain those records that were referred instead of released."  The court finds that "USCIS has not explained . . . why its referral will not significantly delay plaintiff’s FOIA request or impair his ability to obtain responsive agency records."
   
• Procedural Requirements, Searching for responsive Records:  The court holds that "USCIS’s explanation that the redacted notations are non-responsive suffices to justify its decision not to produce that information."
   
• Litigation Considerations, Vaughn Index/Declaration:  "Because the Court cannot determine why USCIS believes [one] document is partially protected from disclosure, the agency has failed to demonstrate that it has complied fully with FOIA's mandate."  "USCIS must submit a new Vaughn declaration that addresses this defect."  Additionally, the court finds that "[n]o . . . markings appear beside [certain] redactions . . . , which prevents the Court from determining USCIS’s alleged basis for withholding that information" and "USCIS’s Vaughn index does not clarify matters."  The court finds that "USCIS must provide more explanation for its decision to partially withhold this document’s contents."  Also, regarding Exemption 5, the court finds that "[t]he index . . . does not contain enough information to permit the Court to determine whether [the attorney-client or deliberative process] privilege applies."  The court finds that defendant's index "does [not] explain why it characterizes an email chain between two non-attorneys as involving a 'discussion between USCIS counsel to USCIS personnel.'"  "Without further explanation, the Court cannot evaluate whether USCIS’s assertion of the attorney-client privilege is lawful."  Similarly, the court finds that "[w]hile USCIS’s reference to 'potential' litigation matters demonstrates that the email chain is predecisional, its description of its deliberative process is too vague to justify the agency’s claim to exemption five protection."  "Moreover, the index’s assertion that disclosure of the withheld information “would chill open communication” is conclusory and lacks factual support."
   
• Litigation Considerations, "Reasonably Segregable" Requirements:  The court relates that "[b]oth [of defendant's declarations] contain an identical, one-sentence explanation of the agency’s segregability analysis: 'It has been determined that no further segregation of meaningful information in the withheld documents is possible without disclosing information that warrants protection under the law.'"  The court holds that "[b]ecause that statement is generalized and conclusory, the declarations alone do not prove that USCIS’s analysis was adequate."  Similarly, regarding another documents, the court finds that defendant "does [not] provide any explanation for the agency’s conclusion that the document must be withheld in full, rather than being partially disclosed."
   
• Exemption 5, Deliberative Process Privilege & "Reasonably Segregable" Requirements:  The court holds that "[b]y contrast, . . . the supplemental Vaughn index contains enough detail to support USCIS’s decision to withhold the three-page 'draft decision memorandum' in its entirety."  "The index entry invokes the deliberative process privilege, explaining that the document 'is comprised of a predecisional memorandum reflecting the recommendations and thought processes of Agency Officers.'"  "In addition, the entry specifically describes the deliberations at issue[]" and "explains the memorandum’s role in USCIS’s deliberation process."  "The Court finds that this detailed Vaughn index entry, combined with USCIS’s declaration that no further segregation is possible, demonstrate that the document in question is not segregable."