Stott v. IRS, No. 14-176, 2014 WL 7338789 (W.D. Wis. Dec. 22, 2014) (Crabb, J.)

Stott v. IRS, No. 14-176, 2014 WL 7338789 (W.D. Wis. Dec. 22, 2014) (Crabb, J.)

Re: Request for records concerning administrative forfeiture action against certain currency and precious metals seized from plaintiff's residence

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

• Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search:  The court finds that defendant "describe[s] in detail the search [it] conducted for documents responsive to plaintiff's request."  Additionally, the court finds that, "[a]lthough plaintiff seems to take issue with the fact that defendant did not produce these and most of the other documents until after he filed suit in this court, 'continuing discovery and release of documents does not prove that the original search was inadequate, but rather shows good faith on the part of the agency that it continues to search for responsive documents.'"  Also, the court finds that, "[a]lthough it is clear that plaintiff believes that defendant's search 'should have' yielded additional unspecified documents, he relies on nothing more than mere speculation."
   
• Litigation Considerations, In Camera Inspection:  The court "conclude[s] that an in camera review of the documents in question is not warranted."  The court finds that defendant "has described the withheld and redacted documents with reasonably specific detail" and "the withheld information fits logically within the claimed exemptions."  Additionally, the court finds that "there is no evidence of bad faith in this case."
   
• Exemption 5, Deliberative Process Privilege:  The court finds that a "statement made by [defendant] about a possible alternative course of action against plaintiff would be deliberative, and the fact that [defendant] made the statement during an active criminal investigation makes it predecisional."  Additionally, the court finds that "[b]ecause [one] email was sent before the initiation of the asset forfeiture action against plaintiff, it is predecisional" and "[a] question concerning next steps would be exempt because it is considered deliberative in nature."
   
• Exemption 7(C):  The court holds that defendant correctly "redacted a third party's name . . . because that party had no involvement in the seizure of plaintiff's assets."
   
• Litigation Considerations, "Reasonably Segregable" Requirements:  The court relates that "[d]efendant has withheld two copies of a one-page memorandum . . . requesting legal advice on the proposed direction of the case and two copies of the responding legal memorandum."  The court notes that "[d]efendant contends that these documents are subject to the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrines that fall within exemption 5" and also Exemption 3 in conjunction with Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 6(e).  The court finds that defendant "makes clear in [its] affidavit that [it] is familiar with the statutory requirement that any nonexempt information be disclosed and that [it] released to plaintiff 'every reasonably segregable non-exempt portion of every responsive document.'"