Hucul v. HHS, No. 20-0035, 2021 WL 961656 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2021) (Curiel, J.)

Hucul v. HHS, No. 20-0035, 2021 WL 961656 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2021) (Curiel, J.)

Re:  Request for certain records concerning California's child support programs

Disposition:  Granting defendants' motion for summary judgment; denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment

• Procedural Requirements, Searching for Responsive Records & Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search:  First, the court relates that "[t]he Government argues that Plaintiff's FOIA request is based on a misunderstanding about how the incentive payments work but construed the request broadly and provided records concerning California's performance related to incentive payments and the amount of incentive payments received by the state."  "The Court agrees with the Government that a reasonable interpretation of Plaintiff's request is producing documents where California 'certified the child support incentives they received were for child support payments received by "non-custodial parents"' and/or 'custodial or joint-custodial parents.'"  "A reasonable reading of the FOIA request does not support Plaintiff's argument that he sought the underlying child support orders to include the parent's name, custodial status of the parent and the case numbers."
  
  Next, the court finds that "Defendant provides a detailed declaration . . . explaining the search it conducted including the terms searched and databases searched."  The court relates that "Plaintiff claims that the Government's search was not adequate because the Government's search terms did not include 'noncustodial parent' or 'joint custodial parent.'"  "The Court disagrees."  "The Court determined above that the scope of the FOIA request included all information where California 'certified the child support incentives they received were for child support payments received by "non-custodial parents"' and/or 'custodial or joint-custodial parents.'"  "But, in a declaration, Defendants declare that states are not required and do not certify the purpose for which child support incentives are received."  "Plaintiff does not produce any evidence to dispute Defendant's evidence that state do not certify the purpose for which child support incentive are received."  "Therefore, because California does not certify the purpose for which child support incentives are received they did not have to conduct a search to include the terms 'custodial' 'non-custodial' or 'joint custodial' parents."  "Therefore, [the court finds that] Defendants conducted an adequate search of their records."  The court also notes that "[b]ecause [certain records] were not responsive, Defendants did not improperly withhold these documents."