Schmitz v. DOJ, No. 12-0649, 2014 WL 1100186 (D.D.C. Mar. 20, 2014) (Sullivan, J.)

Schmitz v. DOJ, No. 12-0649, 2014 WL 1100186 (D.D.C. Mar. 20, 2014) (Sullivan, J.)

Re: Request for records concerning plaintiff's criminal prosecution and that of third party

Disposition: Granting defendant's motion for summary judgment

• Procedural Considerations, Agency Records:  The court rejects plaintiff's argument that defendant did not "provid[e] 'the 'internal' docket (the one utilized by the Court) in the [] case," and explains that "'the federal courts ... are [not] subject to the FOIA.'"  Additionally, the court explains that "EOUSA has no control over the courts' 'internal' docketing system or court documents in general" and "even if the docket is incomplete, this fact fails to raise a genuine dispute about the reasonableness of defendant's search."
   
• Procedural Considerations, Searching for Responsive Records:  The court determines that it "is satisfied from the descriptions of the searches employed that a reasonably adequate search was conducted and that all responsive agency records were disclosed."  The court notes that defendant conducted both computer and manual searches.
   
• Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search:  The court "finds no merit to plaintiff's argument that the declarants have acted in bad faith and that [one attorney] in particular is not competent to testify about the search."  Concerning plaintiff's second argument, the court finds that the attorney in question "states that her declaration is based on her review of the official files, records and information 'acquired ... through the performance of her official duties,' and that she is 'familiar with the procedures followed' in responding to plaintiff's request."