Skip to main content

Murphy v. CBP, No. 15-133, 2017 WL 338001 (N.D. W. Va. Jan. 23, 2017) (Groh, C. J.)


Murphy v. CBP, No. 15-133, 2017 WL 338001 (N.D. W. Va. Jan. 23, 2017) (Groh, C. J.)


Re: Request for records concerning Equal Employment Opportunity complaint plaintiff had previously filed against defendant


Disposition: Denying defendant's second motion for summary judgment; granting plaintiff's motion for in camera inspection

  • Litigation Considerations, Vaughn Index/Declaration & In Camera Inspection: "Upon reviewing the Vaughn index and accompanying attachments submitted by the CBP, the Court finds that although the search performed was adequate, the Vaughn index is not." "As to the search, the Court has reviewed [CBP's] declaration . . . which explains with sufficient particularity the search CBP performed." "However, the Vaughn index does not provide the Court with reasonable specificity such that it can determine whether the claimed exemption applies to the withheld material." The court finds "that Vaughn index entries 'articulat[ing] the Exemption 5 privilege in general terms, using FOIA language, and coupl[ing] the statement of privilege for each document with a general description of the document' are inadequate." "Further, the 'Bates Range or Document' numbers listed in the Vaughn index are missing from the accompanying documents that they are supposed to identify." "Accordingly, it is not possible for the Court to undertake any meaningful review of the provided index and documents because it is entirely unclear which entries correspond to what documents." "The Court orders the Defendant to submit the responsive documents for an in camera review[ ]."
Court Decision Topic(s)
District Court opinions
Litigation Considerations, In Camera Inspection
Litigation Considerations, Vaughn Index/Declarations
Updated December 9, 2021