Pinson v. DOJ, No. 12-1872, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140312 (D.D.C. Aug. 31, 2017) (Contreras, J.)

Pinson v. DOJ, No. 12-1872, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140312 (D.D.C. Aug. 31, 2017) (Contreras, J.)

Re:  Requests for records concerning ten cases litigated by several United States Attorneys' Offices

Disposition:  Granting in part and denying in part plaintiff's motion for summary judgment; denying plaintiff's motion to strike

• Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search:  Regarding one request, the court holds that "[defendant's] declaration sufficiently explains that all record systems likely to contain responsive records were searched, and describes how the FOIA coordinator searched the applicable boxes of physical files by hand using the name of the defendant."  "This description includes the search term used and sufficiently explains that the agency's search was reasonably calculated to uncover all responsive documents."  The court finds similarly regarding two other requests.  However, regarding yet another request, the court finds that, "because the EOUSA has not explained how the searches were conducted with sufficient detail, [specifically "not explain[ing] how or what search terms were used,"] summary judgment is inappropriate."
   
• Procedural Requirements, Searching for Responsive Records:  Regarding one request, the court holds that "EOUSA has adequately demonstrated that a search for public discovery materials [in one case] would be fruitless because of [the presence of a] protective order."  The court points to defendant's declarant's statement that "'[d]iscovery material in [the case] cannot be released under FOIA at this time.'"  "'There is a protective order in place, which prevents release of any of the discovery material.'"  The court finds that "EOUSA therefore need not perform a search relating to [that case], and summary judgment is therefore appropriate for the DOJ."  "However, [the court finds that] the EOUSA has not provided a similarly persuasive affidavit relating to [another case]."  "Instead, the EOUSA points this Court toward the docket entry for [that case]."  The court finds that "[t]his falls short of the agency's obligation to produce a 'reasonably detailed' affidavit."  "Therefore, rather than attempting to interpret the docket entries itself, the Court will deny summary judgment as related to [that case] until the agency produces an affidavit from a person with knowledge explaining why a search for public discovery materials would be futile."