Stoufer v. FBI, No. 20-00046, 2021 WL 1652944 (D. Alaska Apr. 27, 2021) (Gleason, J.)
Stoufer v. FBI, No. 20-00046, 2021 WL 1652944 (D. Alaska Apr. 27, 2021) (Gleason, J.)
Re: Request for records concerning defendants' attempts "to 'recruit' [plaintiff] to participate in an 'interactive surveillance team,'" as well as defendants' "'retaliat[ion]" against [plaintiff] when [plaintiff] rebuffed these 'recruitment events'"
Disposition: Granting defendants' motion for summary judgment
- Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search: Regarding the FBI, the court holds that "[b]ased on the Court's de novo review of the FBI's response and [the FBI's] declaration, the Court finds that the FBI conducted a search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents." The court relates that "[g]iven that Plaintiff sought records related to himself, ostensibly alleging that he is the subject or focus of – or associated with – FBI law enforcement activity, any such information would reasonably be expected to reside within [the FBI's Central Records System ("CRS")]." "The FBI searched the system twice with adequate variations and found no responsive records." "Plaintiff also appears to contend that the FBI should have searched individual email accounts in addition to CRS." "However, '[i]n accordance with FBI policy, emails and other communications which provide substantive documentation regarding the FBI's investigative actions, contain important and/or valuable evidentiary information, or are required to be maintained by law or regulation, are serialized and made retrievable through the CRS.'" "As such, any substantive emails would likely be located in CRS and, therefore, 'additional searches would be redundant and unlikely to locate additional responsive records.'"
Regarding OIG, "the Court finds that OIG demonstrated it conducted a search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents." The court relates that "[defendant] explained in detail the database systems and search methodologies used to respond to Plaintiff's request." "OIG searched its Investigation Data Management System . . . , which is the database of all OIG investigative records." "OIG did not search its audit and inspection records because those 'audit and inspections records do not focus on the conduct of individuals, [and therefore] there is no reasonable possibility that those records will contain information regarding Plaintiff's request.'"
Regarding OIP, the court finds that "Plaintiff's vague speculation as to the inadequacy of the search methodology does not undermine [OIP's] reasonably detailed, nonconclusory declaration, especially considering that OIP's search actually resulted in a response[, "the 2018 letter that had been forwarded to the Civil Rights Division"]."
Regarding USMS, the court relates that "[USMS] explained in detail the database systems and search methodologies used to respond to Plaintiff's request." "Plaintiff's opposition does not address USMS's systems or methodologies, seek discovery, or explain his failure to exhaust administrative remedies." "Based on the Court's de novo review of USMS's response and [defendant's] declaration, the Court finds that USMS demonstrated it conducted a search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents."
- Litigation Considerations, Discovery: The court relates that "Plaintiff also 'request[s] discovery of the FBI's electronic communications to locate a trail of what happened to these emails' and to 'determine if any potentially responsive indexed records were determined to be outside the scope of my request.'" "However, Plaintiff does not articulate how the emails are 'essential to oppose summary judgment.'" "Plaintiff also has not demonstrated that the alleged records outside the scope of his request actually 'exist.'" "Accordingly, the Court denies discovery as to the FBI's FOIA search."
- Exemption 7, Threshold & Exemption 7(C): "[T]he Court finds that OIG properly invoked Exemption 7(C) for each redaction." First, the court finds that "the disclosed records catalogued Plaintiff's complaints to OIG that FBI or other agency employees were engaged in 'illegal surveillance.'" "It follows that OIG compiled those records with a purpose of monitoring or investigating criminal wrongdoing (i.e., 'illegal surveillance') by FBI or other agency employees, which OIG is empowered to do." "Accordingly, OIG has established a rational nexus between the disclosed documents and its law enforcement duties." Second, the court finds that "most of the redactions at issue appear to be the names of OIG employees who were involved in the processing of Plaintiff's complaints." "Those individuals have a cognizable privacy interest." "Further, any third-party individuals (i.e., FBI or other agency employees) whose names were redacted have a privacy interest as well, especially considering that Plaintiff is alleging that these individuals engaged in illegal activity." Third, the court finds that "Plaintiff . . . does not adduce any evidence or offer any argument as to how disclosing the names of OIG employees who merely processed the complaints, or the names of third-party individuals, would shed any such light." "Accordingly, the privacy interest outweighs the public interest."