Rosenberry-Andrews v. DHS, No. 16-63, 2018 WL 5777393 (D.D.C. Nov. 2, 2018) (Kelly, J.)

Date: 
Friday, November 2, 2018

Rosenberry-Andrews v. DHS, No. 16-63, 2018 WL 5777393 (D.D.C. Nov. 2, 2018) (Kelly, J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning plaintiff's employment

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

  • Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search:  The court holds that "Defendant is entitled to summary judgment as to the adequacy of its search."  The court finds that "Defendant's Renewed Motion explains that it did in fact search the three offices identified by [plaintiff] that were not mentioned in its First Motion . . . because those offices are part of other offices that were searched."  "In short, these three offices 'were in fact searched as subcomponents of the other program offices[.]'"  "Defendant, therefore, searched all the offices that [plaintiff] identified."  "The Court also concludes that the search terms used by DHS were adequate."  "[Defendant's] supplemental declaration supplies the search terms that were used . . . which were not included in Defendant's First Motion."  "Moreover, [its] supplemental declaration also explains how the searches that the various offices conducted were, in fact, materially consistent."  "All the offices searched for [plaintiff's] name."  "To be sure, some offices used additional search terms."  "But these minor variations do not change the fact that all the offices (or equivalents thereof) [plaintiff] identified were consistent in using her name as a search term."  Finally, responding to plaintiff's objection, the court finds that "'the adequacy of a FOIA search is generally determined not by the fruits of the search, but by the appropriateness of the methods used to carry out the search.'"
Topic: 
Adequacy of Search
District Court
Litigation Considerations
Updated February 1, 2019