Inter-Cooperative Exch. v. Dep't of Commerce, No. 18-00227, 2019 WL 6842531 (D. Alaska Dec. 16, 2019) (Burgess, J.)

Inter-Cooperative Exch. v. Dep't of Commerce, No. 18-00227, 2019 WL 6842531 (D. Alaska Dec. 16, 2019) (Burgess, J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning motion to include costs for consideration in crab price arbitration system

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

• Procedural Requirements, Searching for Responsive Records:  The court holds that "Defendants have conducted an adequate search for correspondence responsive to Plaintiff’s FOIA requests."  "The record shows that Defendants did in fact conduct adequate search of [certain] text, social media, and voicemail messages."  The court relates that "[the target of the request] has no recollection of sending or receiving responsive text, social media, or voicemail messages responsive to Plaintiff's request but reviewed his personal records to confirm that no such responsive records exist."
   
• Exemption 5, Attorney-Client Privilege:  "The Court has conducted an in camera review of the emails and finds that attorney-client privilege warrants the redactions at issue."  The court explains that the emails are "a conversation seeking legal advice" and the attorney in question "acts in her capacity as a professional legal advisor by giving her legal opinions and instructing on the legal process."  Additionally, "the Court finds that an attorney-client relationship does exist between all active participates in the email thread."
   
• Litigation Considerations, Discovery:  "Where Plaintiff cites 'significant factual gaps,' the Court finds Defendants' allegations – although at times forsaking clarity for brevity – have consistently reiterated the same fact:  Defendants searched [the subject's] records, including text, social media, and voicemail messages on his personal cellphone, and found no correspondence responsive to Plaintiff's FOIA request."  "Because the Court finds that Defendants' search is adequate and Plaintiff's 'countervailing evidence' inadequate, there is no further need for discovery concerning Defendants' search."