Skip to main content

McKathan v. DHS, No. 22-1865, 2024 WL 1344434 (D.D.C. Mar. 29, 2024) (Friedrich, J.)

Date

McKathan v. DHS, No. 22-1865, 2024 WL 1344434 (D.D.C. Mar. 29, 2024) (Friedrich, J.)

Re:  Requests for records concerning plaintiff’s criminal conviction

Disposition:  Granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff’s FOIA claims

  • Procedural Requirements, Proper FOIA Requests; Litigation Considerations, Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies:  Regarding DHS, the court holds that “[plaintiff] did not utilize, much less exhaust, DHS’s administrative remedies.”  “In its May 25 and June 21, 2022 letters, DHS informed [plaintiff] that it could not conduct an adequate search because his request was too broad in scope, invited him to clarify his request, and noted that his case would be administratively closed if he did not respond within 30 days.”  “But [plaintiff] failed to take any of those steps or otherwise engage with DHS.”  “[Plaintiff] now asks this Court for a remedy that he did not seek from the agency.”  “He thus failed to exhaust administrative remedies, dooming his FOIA claim against DHS.”  “[Plaintiff] argues that he had no opportunity to appeal because DHS’s letters were not formal denials and that he was never informed about how to exhaust administrative remedies.”  “True, DHS’s May 25 and June 21, 2022 letters were not appealable denials, but that is because [plaintiff] failed to exhaust administrative remedies first.”  “Indeed, both letters provided [plaintiff] clear notice about how to perfect his FOIA request through means besides appealing.”  “But [plaintiff] simply refused to take such steps, denying DHS an ‘opportunity to reconsider its position and bring its expertise to bear.’”
  • Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search:  Regarding the State Department, the court holds that “[t]he State Department’s search was adequate.”  “[Plaintiff] requested ‘[a]ny and all records of any kind’ ‘located in any location’ mentioning his name, address, or phone number from the period of January 1, 2012 to October 1, 2014.”  “The State Department maintains that this information could be ‘contained in hundreds of databases and records systems located across its many bureaus and offices’ as the agency’s various components ‘maintain their records in varying ways.’”  “In the absence of clarifying information from [plaintiff], the State Department confined its search to two of its central databases:  the eRecords Archive and [Retired Records Inventory Management System (“RIMS”)].”  “The eRecords Archive is the State Department’s ‘central repository for storing permanent electronic records transferred to the Bureau of Administration.’”  “The archive includes ‘all emails sent and received on the State.gov network since January 1, 2017, and retired records transferred to the Bureau of Administration in digital form, including . . . pre-2017 email records.’”  “RIMS is a ‘searchable database that automates the processing of records retired to the Records Service Center.’”  “The State Department’s search was adequate.”  “[Plaintiff] did not specify the potential location of the records and declined to offer any information to help the State Department narrow its search.”  “It was thus an entirely reasonable exercise of its discretion for the State Department ‘to confine its inquiry to . . . central filing system[s],’ including the eRecords Archive and RIMS.”  “Further, given that the requested information could be located in ‘hundreds of databases . . . across its many bureaus and offices,’ . . . the State Department reasonably concluded that additional searches would be ‘unlikely to produce any marginal return[]’ . . . .”
  • Litigation Considerations, Discovery:  Responding to plaintiff’s request, the court holds that “limited discovery is unwarranted as [plaintiff] has not shown bad faith by the defendants.”  “‘Discovery in FOIA is rare and should be denied where an agency’s declarations are reasonably detailed, submitted in good faith and the court is satisfied that no factual dispute remains.’”  “At most, he points to ‘numerous delays and extensions,’ . . . but ‘[c]ourts routinely find that delays in responding to FOIA requests are not, in and of themselves, indicative of agency bad faith,’ . . . .”  “From the Court’s perspective, DHS and the State Department have tried to cooperate with [plaintiff] on multiple occasions, but he refused to play ball.”
  • Litigation Considerations, Vaughn Index/Declaration:  Responding to plaintiff’s request, the court holds that “a Vaughn Index is premature at this stage.”  “EOUSA and DOJ have not finished processing [plaintiff’s] FOIA requests and/or producing any responsive documents, . . . so there are no agency withholdings for the Court to review.”
  • Litigation Considerations:  Responding to plaintiff’s request, the court holds that “an expedited Summary Judgment schedule is also premature.”  “‘District courts enjoy broad discretion when deciding case management and scheduling matters.’”  “The Court will not set a summary judgment briefing schedule before EOUSA and DOJ have finished searching and releasing any documents to [plaintiff].”
Court Decision Topic(s)
District Court opinions
Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search
Litigation Considerations, Discovery
Litigation Considerations, Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
Litigation Considerations, Supplemental to Main Categories
Litigation Considerations, Vaughn Index/Declarations
Procedural Requirements, Proper FOIA Requests
Updated May 2, 2024