Pickering v. DOJ, No. 19-417, 2023 WL 2607299 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2023) (Arcara, J.)

Pickering v. DOJ, No. 19-417, 2023 WL 2607299 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2023) (Arcara, J.)

Re:  Requests for records concerning third party

Disposition:  Adopting in part and rejecting in part magistrate judge’s report and recommendation; granting one defendant’s motion for summary judgment; denying another defendant’s motion for summary judgment

• Litigation Considerations:  First, “[u]pon due consideration of the arguments, and after careful review of the record, the Court adopts the [report and recommendation’s] findings and recommendation that Defendant DOJ’s components ATF and the FBI are entitled to summary judgment.”  “The Court does so on clear error review because Plaintiff did not file objections concerning those portions of the [report and recommendation].”  The court related that “DOJ argued on behalf of its component ATF that the search conducted by ATF for responsive records was adequate, although it did not identify any records responsive to Plaintiff’s request within its custody and control.”  “DOJ also argued on behalf of its component the FBI that the search conducted by the FBI for responsive records was adequate, and further asserted that its segregability determinations were correct and its FOIA exemption determinations were all appropriate.”  “The [report and recommendation] recommends granting all three motions for summary judgment.”
  
  “The Court rejects the [report and recommendation] insofar as it finds that Defendant DHS was ‘an incorrectly sued entity.’”  The court relates that “DHS did not argue that it conducted a search for responsive records; rather, it distinguished DHS from its component agencies, noting that ‘FOIA functions within DHS are decentralized,’ and relied on that distinction to argue that DHS did not improperly withhold requested records.”  DHS also argued that “[it] is not a proper party defendant.”