Murder Accountability Project v. DOJ, No. 19-2478, 2021 WL 2682539 (D.D.C. June 30, 2021) (Berman Jackson, J.)
Murder Accountability Project v. DOJ, No. 19-2478, 2021 WL 2682539 (D.D.C. June 30, 2021) (Berman Jackson, J.)
Re: Request for records concerning data related to crimes investigated by six government entities between January 1, 1989, and the present
Disposition: Granting in part and denying in part defendants' motion for summary judgment; denying plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment as moot
- Litigation Considerations, Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies: Regarding plaintiff's request made to the FBI, the court relates that "Plaintiff does not contest that it did not administratively appeal [its FBI request] in this case, so the relevant inquiry is whether dismissal of its claims would be contrary to the purposes embodied in the administrative scheme." The court finds that " plaintiff never addressed the fundamental principle underlying the FBI's denial, that is, whether FOIA requires an agency to compile or create new records, and it chose not to file a timely appeal to air its concerns and generate a record in the manner contemplated by the statute." "Under the circumstances, dismissal for failure to exhaust is appropriate." Regarding plaintiff's request made to the National Park Service ("NPS"), the court relates that "Defendant NPS argues that summary judgment is appropriate because plaintiff has failed to exhaust its administrative remedies through appeal, but it notes that it 'nevertheless processed [p]laintiff's FOIA requests for the data it had.'" The court finds that "because defendant NPS processed the request, and the agency has already addressed the adequacy of its response on the merits, it appears that there would be little additional benefit to be derived from further consideration of the matter by the agency." "Therefore, the Court will not dismiss the claim on exhaustion grounds." Regarding plaintiff's request made to the Bureau of Indian Affairs ("BIA"), the court finds that "Defendants' memorandum in support of their motion for summary judgment includes the heading, 'Plaintiff Failed to Exhaust Administrative Remedies for Request to FBI, BIA, NPS,' . . . but it contains no further information about why the motion should be granted as to defendant BIA on that basis." "Because no substantive exhaustion argument was advanced by defendant BIA, the Court will not take up the issue."
- Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search: "[T]he Court finds that NPS conducted a reasonable and adequate search." The court finds that "NPS's declarant details the procedure she followed and the individuals she contacted in completing plaintiff's request." "NPS also notified plaintiff that it did not maintain any responsive UCR data for the 2014–2019 period, but forwarded the information to [Department of the Interior Office of Law Enforcement and Security] for direct entry into its separately-maintained spreadsheet." "It was plaintiff that chose not to follow that lead further." "The agency's declarant also documents her attempts to determine why [certain data] was missing from the table ultimately provided to plaintiff." "[Defendant's] explanation is understandably frustrating to plaintiff." "But it is also reasonable given the extremely long time period covered by the FOIA request and the myriad improvements in the means that have become available for storing and retrieving data since then, and it is afforded a presumption of good faith." "So while there is an unsatisfying anomaly posed by the missing data prior to 1995, it is clear that the agency's declarant attempted to find the information in the agency's files as requested, which is sufficient." Regarding the BIA search, "[t]he Court . . . finds that defendant BIA has not 'demonstrate[d] beyond material doubt that its search was "reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents,"' . . . and it will remand the matter to the agency." The court notes that "[t]he agency provides considerable detail about the search in its supplemental declaration." "But neither defendant . . . addresses why BIA did not produce any records from prior to 2014." "Since twenty-five years’ worth of requested data is not accounted for, or even discussed, one cannot conclude without more from the agency that the search was adequate." Next, the court finds that "[b]ased on [the] pleadings, the military defendants have not 'demonstrate[d] beyond material doubt that [their] search was "reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents,"' . . . and plaintiff has pointed to some limited evidence in the record that raises doubts about their efforts." The court relates that plaintiff argues "that the search was inadequate because no homicide data was reported for the first twelve years covered by the request when publicly-available data shows that other homicides were investigated by the service branches during this time period." The court finds that "[t]he military defendants have struggled to articulate a reason for this deficiency."
- Exemption 6: The court relates that, regarding the military defendants, "[o]nly three types of information were redacted from the records the military defendants released to plaintiff: offenders' names, social security numbers, and alien registration numbers." "As the Court has already explained, these categories of information are exactly the kind of personal identifying information that may be protected from disclosure under Exemption 6." "Furthermore, plaintiff is not interested in receiving this information." "The Court therefore concludes that the redaction of this information from the military defendants' production is reasonable under circuit precedent concerning Exemption 6 . . . ."