Rhoades v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, No. 22-728, 2023 WL 3981271 (E.D. Va. June 13, 2023) (Hudson, J.)
Date
Rhoades v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, No. 22-728, 2023 WL 3981271 (E.D. Va. June 13, 2023) (Hudson, J.)
Re: Request for records concerning authorization for a levee
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: The court holds that “[b]y describing in detail the location and nature of the searches made – particularly of Defendant’s electronic records of correspondence with [Federal Records Centers (“FRCs”)] – [defendant’s] declaration suffices to establish the character of Defendant’s search.” Specifically, the court relates that “[t]he result of [certain] efforts indicated that records responsive to Plaintiff’s request were unlikely to be at the [Washington National Records Center in Suitland, Maryland (“WNRC”)], as the only records stored there from the [United States Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”)] Norfolk Office were military construction documents, and thus [were] unlikely to contain civilian permits.” “On its face, the actions described in Defendant’s evidence were reasonably calculated to uncover any responsive documents, and the decision not to further search the WNRC is logical given the low likelihood that responsive documents would be present.” The court also finds that plaintiff’s “‘mere speculation or the building of one inference upon another’ will not suffice to rebut Defendant’s evidence.”
The court also relates that “Plaintiff’s [other] argument on this issue is that Defendant’s search was inadequate as a matter of law because the search of the WNRC was only electronic, not manual.” “For this proposition, Plaintiff cites only to the statutory definition of search including both electronic and manual means.” “In effect, Plaintiff invites this Court to read ‘reasonably’ out of the requirement to perform a ‘search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents,’ . . . and instead impose a duty on Defendant to exhaustively search all locations and all records, however unlikely it may be for them to contain responsive records.” “Not only would such an imposition lack a basis in law, but it would also require upsetting the considered balance between the public’s interest in freedom of information and the Government’s interest in husbanding resources struck by Congress and the Judiciary in crafting and interpreting FOIA.” “The Court declines this invitation.”
Finally, the court relates that “Plaintiff asserts that an additional possible location of a copy of [the permit] is in the past and current property owners’ personal possession.” “As such, Plaintiff maintains that Defendant failed to meet its FOIA requirements by refraining from requiring the past and current owners to provide any such documentation.” The court holds that “[n]o matter how likely it may be for an owner of that property to have such a record, there is simply no legal requirement for Defendant to search private records in response to a FOIA request.” “There is no authority under FOIA for the Court to compel Defendant to acquire records outside its control, and certainly no authority for Defendant to demand anything of a private citizen in response to a FOIA request.”
Court Decision Topic(s)
District Court opinions
Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search
Procedural Requirements, Searching for Responsive Records
Updated July 18, 2023