Hensley v. DOJ, No. 22-00879, 2024 WL 289339 (E.D. Ark. Jan. 25, 2024) (Moody, Jr., J.)

Hensley v. DOJ, No. 22-00879, 2024 WL 289339 (E.D. Ark. Jan. 25, 2024) (Moody, Jr., J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning interview of plaintiff

Disposition:  Granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment

• Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search:  The court holds that “[t]he government has provided the Court with detailed, non-conclusory affidavits outlining the efforts made to find the requested material.”  The court relates that “Plaintiff does not allege that the Defendant’s search was not reasonable but argues that he ‘knows a tape was made.’”  “The FBI [Records/Information Dissemination Section (“RIDS”)] searched its comprehensive, agency-wide Central Records System for main index entries (entries created for individuals who are the subject of an investigation), through Sentinel, its case management system.”  “Sentinel is used by agency personnel to locate records to fulfill its various functions.”  “Sentinel’s index search functions allow FBI personnel to query the CRS for indexed subjects in its case files.”  “RIDS searched the main index entries for the term [plaintiff’s name].”  “As a result of its search efforts, RIDS located a responsive file, but it did not locate a micro-cassette recording of [plaintiff’s] October 13, 2017 interview, transcripts of a recording of his interview, or documents noting or referring to an interview recording.”  “RIDS took the extra step of conducting a search outside the agency’s CRS (targeted search) and consulted with personnel in the FBI’s Little Rock Field Office.”  “This additional search did not locate any reference to a recording.”  “Further, [an agent] . . . testified . . . that the October 13, 2017 interview was not recorded.”  “The Court finds that the government conducted a reasonable, thorough search reasonably calculated to uncover the requested material.”