Manivannan v. Dep't of Energy, No. 17-192, 2019 WL 4750234 (N.D. W. Va. Sept. 30, 2019) (Kleeh. J.)

Manivannan v. Dep't of Energy, No. 17-192, 2019 WL 4750234 (N.D. W. Va. Sept. 30, 2019) (Kleeh. J.)

Re:  Requests for records concerning "alleged official delivery of Plaintiff's personal belongings to him by NETL"

Disposition:  Adopting in part Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation; granting defendant's motion for summary judgment

• Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search:  The court holds that "[defendant's] Declaration . . . is sufficient to establish that the methods used by NETL to conduct FOIA searches can be reasonably expected to produce Plaintiff's requested information."  "[Defendant's declarant] explains in detail NETL's system of records, how the system is searched, and how she personally conducted searches for Plaintiff’s requests."
   
• Litigation Considerations, Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies:  First, the court finds that, "[b]ecause Plaintiff has not appealed the most recent determination letter from NETL, he has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies."  "NETL 'cured its violations by responding before the person making the request' filed suit against it, so constructive exhaustion does not apply."  The court also finds similarly regarding one other request.
   
  The court holds that "Plaintiff is not entitled to judicial review of [one request] because he has failed to pay the required fees."  "NETL requested advanced payment of fees (based [on] an estimated $5,000 in cost) within 30 days and advised that future requests would not be processed without payment of fees."  "Plaintiff never tendered payment of fees."  The court finds similarly regarding four other requests.
   
• Litigation Considerations, Vaughn Index/Declaration; Exemption 5, Attorney-Client Privilege; Exemption 6:  The court finds that "[defendant's] statements [concerning the withholdings taken pursuant to Exemption 5 and Exemption 6] are nonconclusory and relatively detailed explanations of the claimed exemptions."  "Plaintiff has not produced any contradictory evidence of bad faith."  "Therefore, the Court finds that the exemptions are proper, and an in camera inspection of the contested documents is unnecessary."