Skip to main content

Pinson v. DOJ, No. 12-1872, 2019 WL 4142165 (D.D.C. Aug. 30, 2019) (Contreras, J.)


Pinson v. DOJ, No. 12-1872, 2019 WL 4142165 (D.D.C. Aug. 30, 2019) (Contreras, J.) 

Re:  Multiple requests concerning a variety of topics

Disposition:  Denying plaintiff's motion for reconsiderations; granting defendant's renewed motions for summary judgment

  • Litigation Considerations:  The court holds that "[plaintiff] has not shown that justice requires the Court to reconsider its interlocutory order, and the Court denies her motion for reconsideration."  "If indeed [plaintiff] never received DOJ's motion or the Fox/Neal order, these issues should have been raised in a timely manner once she noticed on the docket that DOJ had filed a motion for summary judgment in October 2017."
  • Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search:  Regarding EOUSA, the court relates that "[i]n its prior opinion, the Court held that the EOUSA had provided a general description of its search, including details of the records system that was searched, the amount of time used to conduct the search, and the scope of the search, which was limited to public records, but had failed to clearly indicate which docket number was used to conduct the search."  The court notes that "[i]n a supplemental declaration, DOJ now indicates [the docket number used]."  "With the clarification that the correct docket number was used in the search, the Court finds that the EOUSA has performed a search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents in response to [one request]."  Regarding a second request, "[b]ased on EOUSA's supplemental declaration, the Court finds that the EOUSA has described the search with sufficient detail."  The court relates that "[i]n its [earlier] opinion, the Court denied the previous motion for summary judgment as to [this request] because DOJ did not indicate whether 'the search and released documents were limited to only public records,' nor did DOJ provide an explanation for 'the discrepancy between the 197 pages located and the 200 pages apparently released' to [plaintiff]."  The court finds that EOUSA has now "'searched for and released to [plaintiff] all public and nonpublic records responsive to her request and has explained the apparent numerical discrepancy between the pages located and pages released . . . .'"
  • Litigation Considerations, In Camera Inspection:  The court finds that "[h]ere, the memorandum in support of DOJ's renewed motion and the other attachments to the motion contain sensitive information necessary for the Court's determination of the motion, and which is reasonably likely to cause harm if released."  "The Court accordingly considers the motion in camera."
  • Exemption 7(F):  "The Court previously denied summary judgment as to the applicability of Exemption 7(F) to [one] document . . . because it found that the DOJ had not adequately explained why redaction of certain portions of the document would not be sufficient to prevent any endangerment of life or physical safety."  "After review in camera and consideration of the BOP's explanation for withholding the document in its entirety, the Court finds that BOP's explanation is 'logical' and 'plausible.'"  "The Court finds that there is a reasonable expectation of endangerment and defers to BOP's expertise in assessing the plausible danger."
Court Decision Topic(s)
District Court opinions
Exemption 7(F)
Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search
Litigation Considerations, In Camera Inspection
Litigation Considerations, Supplemental to Main Categories
Updated December 17, 2021