Nat’l Pub. Radio, Inc. v. U.S. Cent. Command, No. 21-1079, 2022 WL 17812452 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2022) (Anello, J.)
Nat’l Pub. Radio, Inc. v. U.S. Cent. Command, No. 21-1079, 2022 WL 17812452 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2022) (Anello, J.)
Re: Request for documents regarding a suspected friendly fire incident that took place in Fallujah, Iraq on April 12, 2004
Disposition: Granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment; denying plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment
- Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search: The court holds that “that Defendants have met their burden on summary judgment to demonstrate ‘beyond material doubt’ that its search was reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents.” The court relates that “[a]s detailed by the first [defendant] declaration, [U.S. Central Command (“CENTCOM”)] began its search with the [Secure Internet Protocol Route Micro Content Manager (“SIPR CM”)] because it was ‘the location responsive records from Iraq during the time period requested would most likely be, if responsive records existed.’” “[Defendant] also represented that there were ‘no other databases which would likely contain responsive records.’” “Upon review of [defendant’s] first declaration, Plaintiffs notified Defendants by email of potential leads that pointed to records outside of SIPR.” “Although CENTCOM did not search any additional locations proposed by Plaintiffs, the Court finds that it met its burden to follow all leads and clearly explained its decisions about the scope of its search in [defendant’s] declarations.” “[Defendant] explained that ‘[w]hen collections are reviewed from the Combined Joint Task Forces (CJTF), these records are transferred to [CENTCOM’s] SIPR for processing to [its content manager].’” “As to why CENTCOM did not search physical locations, [defendant] represented that ‘there is no need to do a physical and electronic search of records stored’ at CENTCOM’s base because ‘all Iraq war records were physically brought back to [CENTCOM] headquarters in 2010, and [CENTCOM] receives quarterly, or as required, collections from the CJTFs which are transferred to and processed into SIPR CM for preservation.’” “Based on these representations, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have ‘made a diligent search for those documents in the places in which they might be expected to be found.’”
- Litigation Considerations, Pattern-or-Practice Claims: The court relates that “Plaintiffs also ask the Court to enter a declaratory judgment that Defendants ‘violated FOIA’s requirement to timely respond to [plaintiff’s] requests.’” “Based on the record, [the court finds that] it is clear that Defendants were untimely in responding to Plaintiffs’ FOIA request.” “Although CENTCOM provided an initial letter to [plaintiff] acknowledging his request within the statutory time frame, CENTCOM did not ‘inform [plaintiff]] [of] what documents it w[ould] produce and the exceptions it w[ould] claim in withholding documents’ until approximately two years later.” “Notwithstanding Defendants’ delay in responding to [plaintiff’s] FOIA request, the Court does not find declaratory judgment warranted.” “Plaintiffs argue that the ‘delay in this case exceeds CENTCOM’s self-reported average of 450 days to process “complex” FOIA requests, a statistic which demonstrates CENTCOM is a repeat violator of the FOIA statutory deadline.’” “However, this statement alone does not convince the Court that CENTCOM has a ‘pattern or practice’ of violating FOIA’s time limits.” “It is possible that CENTCOM’s average processing time for FOIA requests contemplates the statute’s ‘exceptional circumstances’ safety valve, wherein a court may grant an agency ‘additional time to complete its review of the records’ if it ‘is exercising due diligence in responding to the request.’” “Moreover, there is no indication that any violations of the FOIA’s time limits are likely to recur with respect to Plaintiffs’ request at issue, as evidenced by CENTCOM’s willingness to complete multiple searches in this case.” “As a result, the Court finds that issuing a declaratory judgment against Defendants would neither ‘clarify and settle the legal relations at issue [nor] . . . afford relief from the uncertainty and controversy giving rise to the proceedings.’”