Rocky Mountain Wild v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., No. 18-0314, 2020 WL 7770252 (D. Colo. Dec. 30, 2020) (Martínez, J.)
Rocky Mountain Wild v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., No. 18-0314, 2020 WL 7770252 (D. Colo. Dec. 30, 2020) (Martínez, J.)
Re: Request for certain parcels that the Bureau of Land Management ("BLM") was preparing to offer for oil and gas leasing in March 2018
Disposition: Granting defendants' renewed motion for summary judgment
- Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search: "[T]he Court concludes that BLM acted in good faith and expended extensive efforts to comply with [plaintiff's] FOIA request and the Court's directive." Previously, "the Court ordered BLM to search for responsive documents existing between January 1, 2017 and November 3, 2017 regarding only . . . New Parcels." First, the court finds that "[plaintiff's] contention that BLM was required to ask [two custodians] to search for documents referencing the search terms that BLM had used as part of the Prior Searches is contrary to the plain language of the Court's directive." "However, even assuming that the Court's directive could be liberally construed to include tasking new custodians to search for records relating to the New Parcels and the Proposed Parcels, the Court finds that BLM's search was reasonable under the circumstances." The court relates that "[defendant] determined the search parameters for BLM's search for documents relating to the New Parcels after consulting with [three] . . . agency employees with 'comprehensive knowledge of the March 2018 lease sale' and who are the 'most familiar with the nature, scope, and location of documents relating to this lease sale.'" "Furthermore, [the court finds that] the record belies BLM's speculation that undertaking a full search of [two custodians] records would have uncovered additional documents." "It is conceivable that [these two custodians] may have additional documents that have not been captured by the Prior Searches and BLM's search for records relating to the New Parcels." "However, '[t]he issue is not whether any further documents might conceivably exist but rather whether the government's search for responsive documents was adequate, which is determined under a standard of reasonableness, and is dependent upon the circumstances of the case.'"