Riddick v. Holland, No. 13-1512, 2015 WL 5730607 (D.D.C. Sept. 29, 2015) (Cooper, J.)

Riddick v. Holland, No. 13-1512, 2015 WL 5730607 (D.D.C. Sept. 29, 2015) (Cooper, J.)

Re: Requests for records concerning plaintiff's criminal case

Disposition: Granting defendant's motion for summary judgment; denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment; denying plaintiff's motion to strike

• Exemption 5, Attorney Work-Product & Deliberative Process Privilege:  "Because this declaration outlines a methodical and systematic search procedure, and provides a logical explanation for the withholding of some documents in their entirety and other documents in part, and because there is no information in the record to rebut or contradict the agency’s account of its search procedure, the Court will credit the agency’s explanation and conclude that it properly withheld whole documents and portions of other documents under exemption (b)(5)."

• Fees and Fee Waivers, Fees:  "Because EOUSA informed [plaintiff] that this request would be closed if he failed to pay the required fees, as well as that he could appeal that decision, the Court concludes that EOUSA acted properly in closing his request."  "And because, 'under DOJ regulations, the request is 'not ... considered received' until the requester agrees to pay assessed fees, EOUSA is under no statutory obligation to produce responsive records; therefore no improper withholding has yet occurred.'"

• Litigation Considerations, Declaration/Vaughn Index:  The court holds that "because [plaintiff] offers no support for the contention that [defendant's declarant] lacks the personal knowledge underlying his declaration or acted in bad faith, and because nothing elsewhere in the record supports that contention, the Court will deny [plaintiff's] motion to strike."