Philips v. Dep't of the Navy, No. 19-00650, 2020 WL 4001473 (D.D.C. July 15, 2020) (McFadden, J.)

Philips v. Dep't of the Navy, No. 19-00650, 2020 WL 4001473 (D.D.C. July 15, 2020) (McFadden, J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning plaintiff's criminal conviction

Disposition:  Granting defendant's motion for summary judgment

• Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search & Procedural Requirements, Searching for Responsive Records:  The court holds that "the Navy's declaration demonstrates that its search for responsive records was adequate."  The court relates that "[plaintiff] has raised no issue of material fact with respect to the search."  "His argument is simply a demand that the Navy go well beyond the scope of his FOIA request."  "[Plaintiff] would now have the Navy search for yet additional records not responsive to his FOIA request based on alleged cross-references in the NCIS report [which the court also determined not to be responsive to the request]."  The court holds that "'FOIA clearly does not impose [the] burden upon federal agencies' to follow 'an interminable trail of cross-referenced documents.'"  "To the contrary, an agency 'is not obliged to look beyond the four corners of the request for leads to the location of responsive documents.'"  "'Of course, if the requester discovers leads in the documents he receives from the agency, he may pursue those leads through a second FOIA request.'"
   
• Exemptions 6 & 7(C): The court holds that "[t]he balance of interests supports the Navy's withholdings under Exemptions 6 and 7(C)."  The court relates that "[plaintiff] does not dispute that the [responsive material] fall[s] under the statutory definitions, or that their disclosure implicates personal privacy interests."  "Instead, he urges that the public interest in disclosure outweighs the privacy interests at stake."  The court holds that "[plaintiff] first argues that the medical board file could help 'prov[e] his innocence in his pending criminal conviction.'"  "But a FOIA requester's personal need for records is 'irrelevant to th[e] balancing' inquiry."  "[Plaintiff] also claims that disclosure of the contested records would reveal governmental misconduct."  The court holds that "when 'governmental misconduct is alleged as the justification for disclosure, the public interest is insubstantial unless the requester puts forward compelling evidence that the agency denying the FOIA request is engaged in illegal activity and shows that the information sought is necessary in order to confirm or refute that evidence.'"  "When, as here, the request implicates no public interest at all, the Court 'need not linger over the balance' since 'something . . . outweighs nothing every time.'"
   
• Waiver and Discretionary Disclosure, Waiver:  The court holds that "the Navy has not waived its ability to withhold the contested material."  The court relates that "[plaintiff] posits that the withholding of [a third party's] medical board records is improper because [the third party] placed their contents in the public domain through his testimony at [plaintiff's] criminal trial."  "In support of this 'official disclosure' argument, [plaintiff] proffers highlighted testimony from the transcript of his criminal trial in a New York state court."  The court finds that "[t]his fails to overcome the Navy's withholdings for at least two independent reasons."  "First, an official disclosure generally must come from the agency itself, and the testimony of witnesses in a state criminal trial is far afield of disclosures from the Navy."  "Second, the testimony that [plaintiff] highlights relates tangentially – at most – to information that might be revealed in the withheld documents."  "He has not matched the testimony with the withheld information, much less shown it to be identical."