Skip to main content

Greene v. DOJ, No. 20-1207, 2021 WL 1340066 (D. Minn. Apr. 9, 2021) (Tostrud, J.)

Date

Greene v. DOJ, No. 20-1207, 2021 WL 1340066 (D. Minn. Apr. 9, 2021) (Tostrud, J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning "grand-jury process in this District 'from January 1, 2011 to the present time'"

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

  • Litigation Considerations, Mootness and Other Grounds for Dismissal:  The court finds that "[i]t is reasonable to understand [plaintiff's] Complaint to challenge the tardiness of DOJ's response to his FOIA request."  "At the time he filed the Complaint, he had received no response even though the statutory deadlines had passed, and he alleged that DOJ 'provided no explanation . . . to justify [its] actions.'"  "Insofar as [plaintiff's] Complaint raised a 'timeliness' claim – that is, a challenge to the timing of DOJ's response, irrespective of the substance of the response – that claim is now moot because DOJ has provided a response."  "The timeliness claim will accordingly be dismissed without prejudice."
     
  • Litigation Considerations, Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies:  "For several reasons, the better understanding [of the FOIA's judicial review provision] is that [it] allows constructive exhaustion of all aspects of a plaintiff's FOIA claim, not just a challenge to the timeliness of the agency's response."  "This conclusion is more consistent with the text of the statute, which deems a person making a FOIA request 'to have exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to such request.'"  "Nothing in this text limits its applicability to questions of timeliness or suggests that it loses effect once the agency provides a response."  The court relates that "[plaintiff] filed his FOIA request in December 2019."  "DOJ acknowledged receipt of his request at its FOIA Unit on January 17, 2020, . . . but it did not determine whether to comply or otherwise provide a response to the request within 30 days . . . ."  The court finds that "[t]his did not comply with FOIA's time limit provisions, . . . and Greene was accordingly 'deemed to have exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to [his] request' at the time he filed this lawsuit in May 2020 . . . ."  "This remained true after DOJ provided a response in October 2020."  "DOJ's motion will therefore be denied insofar as it seeks dismissal of [plaintiff's] Complaint for failure to exhaust his challenge to the adequacy of the response."
     
  • Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search:  The court holds that "[t]he affidavits that DOJ has provided to support its motion describe a search that was, under the circumstances, reasonable."  "[T]he only evidence in the record indicates that DOJ looked where the records might reasonably have been found, that no other responsive records exist, and that the agency has fully discharged its obligations to respond to [plaintiff's] request, even if it was late in doing so."  The court relates that "[plaintiff] argues that DOJ could have calculated answers for some of his requests by, for example, subtracting the number of 'investigations by law enforcement agencies' from the total number of indictments to obtain the number of indictments stemming from 'investigations requested by citizens not employed by the federal government, assuming no other variables existed.'"  "Setting aside whether these calculations were feasible or would have proved accurate, they were not required because 'it is not necessary to create a document that does not exist in order to satisfy a FOIA request.'"  Responding to plaintiff's argument "that DOJ should have 'extended' its search to the National Archives and Records Administration ('NARA')," the court finds that "NARA is a separate agency to which [plaintiff] could submit a separate FOIA request."
     
  • Litigation Considerations:  Responding to plaintiff's request for a declaratory judgment, the court finds that "[b]ecause DOJ has shown that it provided all responsive records in its possession, a declaratory judgment would be inappropriate, and DOJ is entitled to summary judgment on this request."
Court Decision Topic(s)
District Court opinions
Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search
Litigation Considerations, Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
Litigation Considerations, Mootness and Other Grounds for Dismissal
Litigation Considerations, Supplemental to Main Categories
Updated April 30, 2021