Mullane v. DOJ, No. 23-1094, 2024 WL 3912197 (1st Cir. Aug. 23, 2024) (Montecalvo, J.)

Mullane v. DOJ, No. 23-1094, 2024 WL 3912197 (1st Cir. Aug. 23, 2024) (Montecalvo, J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning the requester

Disposition:  Affirming district court’s grant of government’s motion for summary judgment

• Litigation Considerations, Evidentiary Showing, Adequacy of Search:  The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit holds that “DOJ conducted an adequate search for documents and discharged its obligations under FOIA.”  First, the court finds that “DOJ’s affidavits ‘cogently explained’ the nature of its search, ‘provid[ing] a reasonable explanation for the agency’s process and, at a bare minimum, created a presumption that the [agency] acted in good faith.’”  Responding to the requester’s arguments, the court then finds that “[t]he record . . . undermines [the requester’s] position that the DOJ’s FOIA search was actually limited to his employment period” and “DOJ did not unreasonably restrict its search to emails.”  Regarding the search term, the court then finds that “DOJ’s use of [the requester’s last name] as its only search term did not render its search unreasonable.”  “[The requester] repeatedly argues that the DOJ ‘rewr[o]te his request’ and inappropriately considered ‘the purpose animating’ his requests.”  “Beginning with the search terms in his October 12, 2018 FOIA request, [the requester] demanded six specific search terms:  [the requester’s last name], [the requester’s first name] ‘intern,’ ‘law clerk,’ ‘law student,’ and [a district court judge in the Southern District of Florida].”  “In general, an agency ‘need not knock down every search design advanced by every requester.’”  “Here, [the requester’s last name] represented the most specific, yet broad search term that was reasonably likely to identify pertinent records without yielding an excessive number of superfluous hits.”  “As [the government] explained, the terms ‘intern,’ ‘law clerk,’ and [the district court judge] would not have helped ‘obtain responsive records’ because the USAO-SDFL ‘has dozens of “law clerks” and “interns”’ and it ‘receives employment applications from, and otherwise regularly deals with, current and former judicial “law clerks.”’”  “And although [the government] did not specifically address it, the same rationale would plainly support omitting the term ‘law student.’”  “[The requester] further criticizes [the government’s] failure to quantify how burdensome a search using his preferred terms would have been for the DOJ.”  “But [the court] agree[s] with the district court that [the government’s] affidavit reflects a valid explanation for the DOJ’s search, particularly ‘given the nature of [the requester’s] limited contact with the office as an unpaid student intern.’”  “And we see no reason why this shortcoming makes the DOJ’s search per se unreasonable, nor has [the requester] provided any substantive support for this purported requirement.”  “Instead, [the government’s] explanation for limiting the search terms was based on ‘a practical and common-sense approach’ to finding relevant documents.”