Richardson v. United States, Civil Action No. 13–1203 (ESH)
| Decision Date | 04 August 2015 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 13–1203 (ESH) |
| Citation | 117 F.Supp.3d 41 |
| Parties | Henry Paul Richardson, Plaintiff, v. United States of America, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Henry Paul Richardson, Petersburg, VA, pro se.
Jesse Dyer Stewart, Robert N. Englund, U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, for Defendant.
Plaintiff Henry Paul Richardson, proceeding pro se, filed this action against the United States of America under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 52, to challenge the Executive Office of United States Attorneys' ("EOUSA") response to his FOIA request. On February 19, 2015, the Court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment except as to two issues. See Richardson v. United States, 80 F.Supp.3d 128, 137, No. 13–cv–1203, 2015 WL 709118, at *6 (D.D.C. Feb. 19, 2015) (" Richardson I ") [ECF Nos. 30]. Before the Court is defendant's renewed motion for summary judgment on the remaining issues. (Def.'s Renewed Mot. for Summary Judgment, March 6, 2015 [ECF No. 32] ("Renewed SJ Mot.").) For the reasons stated herein, defendant's motion will be granted.
The factual and procedural history of this case prior to February 19, 2015, is set forth in the Court's prior opinion, see Richardson I , at 130, 2015 WL 709118 at *1, and will not be repeated here. Based on the record at that time, the Court concluded that defendant was entitled to summary judgment on all but two issues: (1) whether the EOUSA had conducted an adequate search for still photos associated with a February 14, 2006 surveillance videotape; and (2) whether there was any reasonably segregable non-exempt information in two of the documents (documents 11 and 12) that EOUSA had withheld in their entirety. See id. at 137, 2015 WL 709118 at *6. The Court directed defendant to file a renewed motion for summary judgment addressing these issues. (See Order, Feb. 19, 2015 [ECF Nos. 31].)
After receiving the Court's Order, the EOUSA discovered that it had in its possession an additional "80 pages of records containing photographs," which it released to plaintiff in their entirety on February 27, 2015.1 (2d Luczynski Decl. ¶ 2.)
On March 6, 2015, defendant filed its renewed motion for summary judgment, supported by a new declaration from David Luczynski and an updated Vaughn index. (See Renewed SJ Mot. Ex. 4 (2nd Decl. of David Luczynski, Feb. 27, 2015 [ECF No. 32–6] ) ("2d Luczynski Decl."); id. Ex. 3 (Vaughn Index (Updated) [ECF No. 32–5] ).) Plaintiff filed a response, opposing summary judgment on the issue of the adequacy of the EOUSA's search on the ground that he had still not received a complete set of still photo images from the February 14, 2006 surveillance videotape nor a copy of the video itself. (Pl.'s Opp'n to Def.'s Renewed SJ Mot. at 2, June 5, 2015 [ECF No. 41].)
After receiving plaintiff's response, the EOUSA asked the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Virginia to "search Plaintiff's file again, focusing on anything related to a surveillance video." (See Reply Ex. 1, ¶ 2 (Supplemental Declaration Addressing Plaintiff's Memorandum Concerning Surveil[l]ance Video, Jun 29, 2015 [ECF No. 43–1] ("Luczynski Video Decl.")).) As a result of that search, three DVDs and one Mini DVD were located.2 (Luczynski Video Decl. ¶ 2.) However, the EOUSA concluded that these DVDs were not responsive because they did not include surveillance footage from February 14, 2006. (Luczynski Video Decl. ¶¶ 3–4.)
When defendant filed its reply, it included another declaration from Luczynski, describing the EOUSA's supplemental search for surveillance video and stating that none of the still photos that the EOUSA had previously released to plaintiff came from the February 14, 2006 surveillance video, but rather that they were "surveillance photos taken by various law enforcement personnel, situated in different locations, and the date when they were taken is unknown." (Id. ¶ 1.)
Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings and evidence show 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) ; Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) ; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). On "summary judgment the inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts ... must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion." Matsushita Elec. Indus. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) ; Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Secret Serv., 726 F.3d 208, 215 (D.C.Cir.2013). Where, as here, a plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court has "an obligation to construe pro se filings liberally." Toolasprashad v. Bureau of Prisons, 286 F.3d 576, 583 (D.C.Cir.2002) ; Haines v. Kerner , 404 U.S. 519, 520–21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972).
"FOIA cases typically and appropriately are decided on motions for summary judgment." See, e.g., Higgins v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 919 F.Supp.2d 131, 139 (D.D.C.2013) (internal quotations omitted). To obtain summary judgment, a defendant agency must establish that it has conducted an adequate search for responsive records, that each responsive record that it has located either has been produced to the plaintiff or is exempt from disclosure, and that it has not withheld any reasonably segregable information. See Weisberg v. Dep't of Justice, 627 F.2d 365, 368 (D.C.Cir.1980) ; Elec. rontier Found. v. U.S. Dep't of Justice , 739 F.3d 1, 12 (D.C.Cir.2014). "[S]ummary judgment may be granted on the basis of agency affidavits if they contain reasonable specificity of detail rather than merely conclusory statements, and if they are not called into question by contradictory evidence in the record or by evidence of agency bad faith." Halperin v. CIA , 629 F.2d 144, 148 (D.C.Cir.1980).
Relying on its supplemental production of documents, its supplemental search of plaintiff's file, and two additional declarations, defendant asserts that the EOUSA has conducted an adequate search for any surveillance photos or videotapes from February 14, 2006.
An agency has conducted an adequate search under the FOIA if "it can demonstrate beyond material doubt that its search was ‘reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents.’ " Valencia–Lucena v. U.S. Coast Guard , 180 F.3d 321, 325 (D.C.Cir.1999) (quoting Truitt v. Dep't of State , 897 F.2d 540, 542 (D.C.Cir.1990) (quoting Weisberg v. Dep't of Justice , 705 F.2d 1344, 1351 (D.C.Cir.1983) )). To meet this burden, the agency must submit 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." Oglesby v. U.S. Dep't of the Army , 920 F.2d 57, 68 (D.C.Cir.1990). The agency's affidavits need not "set forth with meticulous documentation the details of an epic search for the requested records," Perry v. Block , 684 F.2d 121, 127 (D.C.Cir.1982), but if "the record leaves substantial doubt as to the sufficiency of the search, summary judgment for the agency is not proper." Truitt, 897 F.2d at 542 ; see also Plunkett v. Dep't of Justice , 924 F.Supp.2d 289, 298 (D.D.C.2013) (). "The adequacy of the search ... ‘is judged by a standard of reasonableness and depends, not surprisingly, upon the facts of each case.’ " Steinberg v. U.S. Dep't of Justice , 23 F.3d 548, 551 (D.C.Cir.1994) (quoting Weisberg v. Dep't of Justice , 745 F.2d 1476, 1485 (D.C.Cir.1984) ).
Under those circumstances, the Court concluded that "there remain[ed] a question as to the adequacy of defendant's search for the still photos associated with the February 14, 2006 videotapes." Id. Now, however, defendant has provided the explanation that was previously lacking, explaining that the still photos that the EOUSA found and released were not from the surveillance video. (See Luczynski Video Decl. ¶ 1.) Thus, there is no obvious "gap" in the records that were located and produced. In addition, while maintaining that plaintiff's FOIA request did not technically ask for "surveillance videos" when he requested "surveillance pictures" (see Renewed SJ Mem. at 8), the EOUSA has conducted a second search of plaintiff's file for "anything related to a surveillance video." (Luczynski Video Decl. ¶ 2.) That search located 4 DVDs, which defendant has established do not contain the February 14, 2006 surveillance videotape sought by plaintiff. (Id. ¶¶ 3–4.) Based on these developments, the Court is satisfied that the EOUSA conducted an...
To continue reading
Request your trial