Knowles v. U.S. Dep't of State

• Decision Date: 29 March 2018
• Docket Number: Civil Case No. 16–1450 (RJL)
• Citation: Knowles v. U.S. Dep't of State, 308 F.Supp.3d 1 (D. D.C. 2018)
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
• Parties: Samuel KNOWLES, Plaintiff, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Defendant.

308 F.Supp.3d 1

Samuel KNOWLES, Plaintiff,

v.U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Defendant.

Civil Case No. 16–1450 (RJL)

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

FILED MARCH 29, 2018

Samuel Knowles, Coleman, FL, pro se.

Alexander Daniel Shoaibi, Christopher Charles Hair, U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

RICHARD J. LEON, United States District Judge

Samuel Knowles("Knowles" or "plaintiff"), appearing pro se , sues the United States Department of State("State Department" or "defendant") under the Freedom of Information Act("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552.The State Department has released responsive records and has moved for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.See Def.'s Mot. Summ. J. [Dkt. # 19].Plaintiff has filed a motion for the Court to take judicial notice of "a stipulated fact" that is not clearly defined.SeePet'r Requesting Court to Take Judicial Notice[Dkt. # 24].Upon consideration of the parties' submissions, the record, and the relevant case law, the Court finds no genuine dispute surrounding defendant's compliance with the FOIA.Therefore, defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and plaintiff's Motion to Take Judicial Notice is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

The documented facts are as follows.In a FOIA request dated January 22, 2014, plaintiff sought:

1) any and all information regarding communications between the Bahamian authorities and the United States Drug Enforcement Agency about [plaintiff's] transport to the United States.2) Any and all information regarding the diplomatic process involved in [plaintiff's] extradition from the Bahamas to the United States.3) The names of all U.S. and Bahamian agents and personnel involved in the scheduling and execution of the flight.

Decl. of Eric F. Stein ("Stein Decl."), Ex. 1, at 1[Dkt. # 19–4].

The State Department released responsive records between May 2015 and March 2017.On May 9, 2015, it released seven documents, four with redactions.SteinDecl. ¶ 6.On December 21, 2016, it released twenty-one documents, fourteen with redactions, and withheld six documents completely.Id.¶ 9.On January 31, 2017, it released five documents, one with redactions, and withheld one document completely.Id.¶ 11.The State Department withheld information under FOIA exemptions 1, 5, 6, and 7(C), codified in5 U.S.C. § 552(b).Seeid.¶¶ 33–59.

In addition, the State Department referred a "one page extradition memorandum" to the Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA"), which, on March 13, 2017, released the document with third-party names redacted under FOIA exemptions 7(C) and 7(F). Decl. of Katherine L. Myrick¶¶ 8–9("Myrick Decl.")[Dkt. # 19–6].Defendant also referred eighteen documents, totaling forty-one pages, to the Department of Justice's Criminal Division, which withheld them in full under FOIA exemptions 5, 6 and 7(C)., Decl. of Gail A. Brodfuehrer¶ 8("Brodfuehrer Decl.")[Dkt. # 19–5].

LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).FOIAcases are routinely decided on motions for summary judgment.SeeBrayton v. Office of U.S. Trade Representative , 641 F.3d 521, 527(D.C. Cir.2011).

"FOIA requires executive branch agencies to make their records available ‘to any person’ upon request, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A), subject to nine exemptions, id.§ 552(b)(1)–(9)."Newport Aeronautical Sales v. Dep't of Air Force , 684 F.3d 160, 162(D.C. Cir.2012).To prevail on summary judgment in a FOIA case, an agency must show that it adequately searched for records responsive to the relevant request and that any records withheld by the agency fall within one of FOIA's statutory exemptions.Seeid.;Weisberg v. U.S. Dep't of Justice , 705 F.2d 1344, 1351(D.C. Cir.1983).

An agency seeking to satisfy that burden "[t]ypically ... does so by affidavit."Am. Civil Liberties Union v. U.S. Dep't of Defense , 628 F.3d 612, 619(D.C. Cir.2011)."If an agency's affidavit describes the justifications for withholding the information with specific detail, demonstrates that the information withheld logically falls within the claimed exemption, and is not contradicted by contrary evidence in the record or by evidence of the agency's bad faith, then summary judgment is warranted on the basis of the affidavit alone."Id.Provided that they are accordingly detailed, agency affidavits "cannot be rebutted by ‘purely speculative claims about the existence and discoverability of other documents.’ "Mobley v. CIA , 806 F.3d 568, 581(D.C. Cir.2015)(quotingSafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC , 926 F.2d 1197, 1200(D.C. Cir.1991) ).Indeed, "[t]o successfully challenge an agency's showing that it complied with the FOIA, the plaintiff must come forward with ‘specific facts’ demonstrating that there is a genuine issue with respect to whether the agency has improperly withheld extant agency records."Span v. U.S. Dep't of Justice , 696 F.Supp.2d 113, 119(D.D.C.2010).

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff has listed "issues of disputed material facts," which essentially challenge both the search for responsive records and the withholding of information.Pl.'s Br. Opp'n to Def's Summ. J. Motion("Pl.'s Opp'n"), Attach.A, Stmt. of Disputed Factual Issues 1 [Dkt. # 21].For the reasons discussed below, plaintiff's challenges all fail.

A.The Adequacy of the Search

To satisfy its obligations under the FOIA, an agency must perform an adequate search for records responsive to the relevant request.Burwell v. Exec. Office for U.S. Atty's , 210 F.Supp.3d 33, 36–37(D.D.C.2016)(citation omitted)."The adequacy of an agency's search is measured by a standard of reasonableness and is dependent upon the circumstances of the case."Weisberg , 705 F.2d at 1351(internal quotation marks and citations omitted).An agency "fulfills its obligations under FOIA if it can demonstrate beyond material doubt that its search was reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents."Ancient Coin Collectors Guild v. U.S. Dep't of State , 641 F.3d 504, 514(D.C. Cir.2011)(internal quotation marks omitted).The adequacy of an agency's search "is generally determined not by the fruits of the search, but by the appropriateness of the methods used to carry out the search."Iturralde v. Comptroller of the Currency , 315 F.3d 311, 315(D.C. Cir.2003).Therefore, "the failure of an agency to turn up one specific document in its search does not alone render a search inadequate."Id.

Typically, an agency is entitled to summary judgment on the search question when it has provided a "reasonably detailed affidavit, setting forth the search terms and the type of search performed, and averring that all files likely to contain responsive materials (if such records exist) were searched."Mobley , 806 F.3d at 581(internal quotation marks omitted).Such an affidavit or declaration is "accorded a presumption of good faith, which cannot be rebutted by purely speculative claims about the existence and discoverability of other documents."Id.(internal quotation marks omitted).

Although an agency may not ignore obvious "indications in documents found in its initial search that there were additional responsive documents elsewhere,"Iturralde , 315 F.3d at 315, the " ‘lead’ must be ‘both clear and certain’ and ‘so apparent that the [agency] cannot in good faith fail to pursue it,’ "Mobley , 806 F.3d at 582(quotingKowalczyk v. U.S. Dep't of Justice , 73 F.3d 386, 389(D.C. Cir.1996) ).The reasonableness of the search is not undermined by a plaintiff's "mere speculation that as yet uncovered documents may exist."Iturralde , 315 F.3d at 316(internal quotation marks and alteration omitted).Summary judgment is unwarranted only "if a review of the record raises substantial doubt" about the search, "particularly in view of well defined requests and positive indications of overlooked materials."Valencia–Lucena v. U.S. Coast Guard , 180 F.3d 321, 326(D.C. Cir.1999)(internal quotation marks omitted).

The State Department's declarant is the Director of its Office of Information Programs Services("IPS"), which responds to FOIAandPrivacy Act requests.SteinDecl. ¶ 1.He explains that upon reviewing plaintiff's request, it was determined that responsive records were likely to be found in the Office of the Legal Adviser("OLA"), the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs ("Bureau"), the U.S. Embassy in Nassau, Bahamas ("U.S. Embassy"), and the Central Foreign Policy Records ("CFPR"), and that "no other offices or records systems were reasonably likely to maintain documents on extraditions."Id.¶ 15.The declarant has provided adequately detailed descriptions of each office's purpose, search methods, and search terms, and the results of the searches.Seeid.¶¶ 17–20(OLA locating twenty-seven responsive documents);id.¶¶ 21–24(Bureau locating no responsive documents);id.¶¶ 25–31(U.S. Embassy locating six responsive documents);id.¶ 32(CFPR, maintained in the State Archiving System, locating seven responsive documents).

Plaintiff contends that defendant(1)"failed to search and explain whether [it] possess[es] email archives for the Office of Law Enforcement and Intelligence("L/LEI"), U.S. Embassy Nassau, Bahamas, and State Archiving System employees other than the former staff member," and (2) failed to search an email "backup system" that he only surmises might exist.Pl.'s Opp'nDecl. ¶ 14[Dkt. # 21–1](brackets omitted).Neither contention suffices to defeat summary judgment.

Plaintiff's first assertion is contradicted by the record.The declarant in fact avers that a search was conducted of "L/LEI's electronic and paper files," which "consist of unclassified and classified email records of the Supervisory Extradition Specialist [and] the archived email records of L/LEI employees who worked...