Rogers v. EOUSA, No. 18-454, 2019 WL 1538252 (D.D.C. Apr. 9, 2019) (Walton, J.)

Rogers v. EOUSA, No. 18-454, 2019 WL 1538252 (D.D.C. Apr. 9, 2019) (Walton, J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning civil forfeiture action against plaintiff

Disposition:  Granting defendant's motion for summary judgment; denying plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment

• Procedural Requirements:  "[B]ecause the Court concludes that the plaintiff's FOIA and Privacy Act claims are barred by the Settlement Agreement, the Court must grant the defendant's motion for summary judgment as to these claims and deny the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment."  "The Court finds that the plaintiff's reliance on Price is misplaced and declines to extend the Price holding as requested by the plaintiff."  "No published opinion, to the Court's knowledge, has found that the Price holding applies to civil settlement agreements."  "This Court likewise concludes that the Release is enforceable and that it covers the plaintiff's FOIA and Privacy Act claims asserted in this case." The court relates that plaintiff argues that the government waived the ability to use the settlement agreement during the administrative appeal process.  "[T]he Court concludes that the plaintiff has not satisfied his burden to demonstrate a valid waiver of the Settlement Agreement by the defendant."  "As a preliminary matter, the OIP's 2016 decision did not clearly 'intentional[ly] relinquish[ ] or abandon[ ]' the defendant’s rights provided in the Settlement Agreement."  The court explains that "nowhere in the 2016 decision does the OIP expressly indicate that it was remanding the plaintiff's FOIA request because it found that the defendant had waived the terms of the Settlement Agreement."  "Moreover, even if the Court could conclude that the purported waiver was 'unmistakable,' . . . the Court is not persuaded that the plaintiff has satisfied his burden to prove that the OIP had authority to waive a provision of the Settlement Agreement.