Whitmore v. DOJ, No. 14-986, 2015 WL 5675579 (D.D.C. Sept. 25, 2015) (Walton, J.)

Whitmore v. DOJ, No. 14-986, 2015 WL 5675579 (D.D.C. Sept. 25, 2015) (Walton, J.)

Re: Request for records concerning plaintiff's criminal case

Disposition: Granting defendant's motion for summary judgment

• Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search:  The court finds that defendant's search was adequate.  The court relates that defendant determined which field office would have records responsive to the request and searched that office.  The court related that defendant determined that "the [potentially responsive] file had been 'stripped,' which resulted in 'all unnecessary documents in that file [having been] disposed of in accordance with the practices of the [USAO/SDMS].'" "Thus, the declarant found that 'no records existed that were responsive.'"  In response to plaintiff's argument against EOUSA limiting its search to one field office, the court finds that "EOUSA limited its search to the Southern District of Mississippi 'because that was the district identified by Plaintiff in her FOIA request letter.'"  "And the plaintiff identified her criminal case by number and by court—the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi."  "Based on this information, the EOUSA’s decisions to refer the matter to the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Mississippi, and to limit its searches to records maintained by this office, were reasonable."  Additionally, the court finds that "[defendant] was not required to search for records maintained by other federal government agencies and therefore its failure to forward the plaintiff’s request to the FBI or the BATFE does not render the searches inadequate."  Finally, the court finds that "plaintiff offers nothing but mere speculation as to the existence of responsive records, and this unsupported assertion does not overcome the defendants’ showing."
   
• Exemption 7(C):  The court finds that "[t]he plaintiff has not referenced FOIA Exemption 7(C) or addressed the defendants’ legal arguments for withholding the agents’ identities and the prosecutor’s telephone number."  "As to this ground for withholding information, the Court therefore will grant the defendants’ summary judgment motion as conceded."  "But even if the plaintiff had not conceded the matter, the Court finds that, based on the EOUSA’s supporting declaration, the decision to withhold the special agents’ identities and the prosecutor’s direct telephone number is proper."
   
• Litigation Considerations, "Reasonably Segregable" Requirements:  "[B]ased on the supporting declarations and Vaughn Index filed in this case, the Court concludes that the EOUSAs adequately specified 'which portions of the document[s] are disclosable and which are ... exempt.'"  The court relates that "[t]he declarant avers that each responsive record 'was evaluated ... to determine if any information could be segregated and released.'"