Skip to main content

Se. Legal Found., Inc. v. DOJ, No. 19-03215, 2022 WL 975598 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 31, 2022) (Boulee, J.)

Date

Se. Legal Found., Inc. v. DOJ, No. 19-03215, 2022 WL 975598 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 31, 2022) (Boulee, J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning the Carter Page FISA application

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

  • Procedural Requirements, Searching for Responsive Records; Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search:  "Here, the crux of [plaintiff's] argument is that the DOJ's search was inadequate because it refused to search for records outside the NSD."  "In [plaintiff's] view, 'the NSD could not reasonably be the only DOJ component likely to have records responsive to [plaintiff's] request.'"  "[Plaintiff] underscores that it sent the request to the MRU rather than to a specific component for this reason and argues that 'more than one component within the DOJ can—and should—respond to a single request when necessary.'"  "When the MRU referred the request to the NSD only, as it is permitted to do, [plaintiff] complained that the MRU should have forwarded the request to additional components of the DOJ or that the NSD, which ultimately received the request, should have searched for documents across multiple components."  "However, [plaintiff] has not cited any law that authorizes the Court either to direct how the MRU makes its referral decisions or to impose search obligations on the NSD beyond what the DOJ's regulations require."  "While the Court is cognizant of 'the basic policy that disclosure, not secrecy, is the dominant objective of [FOIA],' . . . the Court is also mindful of not micromanaging the DOJ's processes for responding to general requests sent to its MRU."  "This is particularly true where, as here, an existing DOJ regulation directs how those requests should be handled."

    "[T]his dispute does not concern whether the NSD used the appropriate search terms."  "Indeed, the NSD used the search terms [plaintiff] provided and searched the records of the NSD custodians that [plaintiff] identified."  "[Plaintiff's] claim here is that the NSD did not search for records outside its boundaries, not that the NSD failed to search for records within its own system."  "With respect to the bottom-line issue of whether the DOJ's search for responsive documents was adequate, . . . the Court finds that the DOJ has shown that (i) the MRU followed the established process for referring general FOIA requests; (ii) pursuant to that process, the MRU referred the request to only the NSD; (iii) the NSD conducted an initial search for documents, and at [plaintiff's] request conducted a follow up search based on search terms [plaintiff] provided and certain custodians [plaintiff] identified; and (iv) the NSD consulted subject matter experts as part of the search."  "These facts are sufficient to show 'beyond a material doubt' that the DOJ's search was reasonable based on its established processes and its regulations."

    "By choosing to send a general request to the MRU, [plaintiff] accepted the inherent risk that the MRU will send the request to fewer or none of the components that [plaintiff] believes are relevant."  "The Court declines to require the DOJ to change its processes or regulations for addressing non-specific FOIA requests or otherwise require the NSD to search for records outside its boundaries."  "If [plaintiff] believes that its request should go to a component other than the NSD, it has the option to send a request to that component."
Court Decision Topic(s)
District Court opinions
Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search
Procedural Requirements, Searching for Responsive Records
Updated April 26, 2022