Nat'l Student Legal Def. Network v. U.S. Dep't of Educ., No. 19-03473, 2022 WL 1223707 (D.D.C. Apr. 26, 2022) (Nichols, J.)
Nat'l Student Legal Def. Network v. U.S. Dep't of Educ., No. 19-03473, 2022 WL 1223707 (D.D.C. Apr. 26, 2022) (Nichols, J.)
Re: Request for records concerning certain efforts by the Department of Education to gather data to determine the eligibility of educational institutions to participate in federal student aid programs
Disposition: Granting defendant's motion for summary judgment; denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment
- Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search; Procedural Requirements, Searching for Responsive Records: Plaintiff "argues, first, that even crediting the declarations, the Department's search was inadequate because the declarations have inconsistencies or are facially deficient." "It argues that although the declarations state that only two requests for data were made, the Department at least should have confirmed with the limited number of other known custodians that the documents they had were duplicative." "[T]he Court concludes that the Department acted reasonably in ending the search after finding and producing the two documents, because the Department had a reasonable basis to believe there were only two responsive documents." "[T]he Department has done enough to show that it is reasonably likely that there are only two responsive records, both of which have already been produced—and thus that it is not reasonably likely for further searches of other offices to turn up other (non-duplicative) documents." Additionally, "[t]he Court agrees with the government that the declarations, taken together, have done enough to establish Hammond's personal knowledge regarding responsive documents." "But the record is now clear that Hammond was always aware of the existence of responsive records, just not any located within her group—the Policy Liaison Unit." Moreover, "the Network argues that the Department was required by law to ask the Administration at least two additional times for data (that is, at least four times), but is representing here that it did so only twice in total." "The Court concludes that the government has now done enough to demonstrate that—regardless of what its regulations required—the Department's search and declarations were adequate." "But, while the Department has not said so expressly, it has essentially admitted either that it did not comply with the regulations or has a different interpretation of them." "Where, as here, the declarations are clear and there is little doubt that the department considered whether it had overlooked the regulations in question . . . the Court will not force the government to state directly what it has already admitted indirectly."