Scott v. Internal Revenue Serv.
| Decision Date | 26 January 2021 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO.: 18-CV-81742-MARRA/MATTHEWMAN |
| Parties | JAMES E. SCOTT, Plaintiff, pro se, v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the Internal Revenue Service's Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 20] and Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 25]. The Court has carefully considered the written submissions, including the requested supplemental affidavit, the Amended Vaughn Index,1 the record, the redacted and withheld pages in camera, applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised in the premises.
Pro se Plaintiff, James E. Scott ("Scott"), moves for summary judgment on the grounds that Defendant, the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS"), has (1) failed to carry its burden to show that each record withheld from disclosure based on a claim of exemption under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") is within the applicablestatutory description, and (2) failed to carry its burden with respect to the assertion of Exemption 5 that "an agency shall withhold information under this section only if the agency reasonably foresees that disclosure would harm an interest protected by an exemption described in subsection b" of 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(8)(A)(i)(I).
The IRS moves for summary judgment asserting it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law that it has (1) performed an adequate search for records responsive to Scott's FOIA request; and (2) properly withheld records, or portions thereof, under the FOIA exemptions provided in 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). The Magistrate Judge ordered the IRS to produce a limited Vaughn2 Index as to pages 1-44 and 697-826, having found that the tables on pages 8-11 of the Edelman Declaration did not provide sufficient information regarding the withheld documents. See DE 32, DE 41-2. This Court subsequently ordered the IRS to produce the redacted and withheld pages for an in camera review, and a supplemental affidavit regarding its search. DE 47, DE 48, DE 51.
1. On March 29, 2018, Scott submitted a FOIA request for "certain records within the [IRS] Office of Chief Counsel." (Decl. of Aaron B. Edelman, hereinafter "Edelman Decl.", DE 20-3, ¶ 6) The request listed three specific categories of records:
2. On March 30, 2018, Scott's request was assigned to Government Information Specialist Aaron B. Edelman ("Edelman"). (Edelman Decl. ¶ 8.)
3. Because Scott's FOIA request sought records related to a Private Letter Ruling ("PLR"),5 Edelman knew that the records sought by Scott would be stored withinthe IRS Office of Chief Counsel. (Edelman Decl. ¶ 15.)
4. Records relating to most PLRs are stored in the Office of Chief Counsel's National Office ("National Office"), which is responsible for issuing most PLRs. (Id.)
5. While the IRS's Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division also has authority to issue PLRs on certain matters, those matters are not relevant here. (Id. n.4).
6. On April 4, 2018, Edelman prepared and sent a search memorandum requesting a search of potentially responsive records to the Disclosure and Litigation Support ("DLS") Branch within the Office of the Chief Counsel, which is responsible for processing and coordinating all FOIA requests for National Office records. (Edelman Decl. ¶ 16.)
7. Upon receipt of the search memorandum, DLS Branch Chief Melva Tyler assigned the FOIA request to Ms. Poole ("Poole") for processing. (Id. ¶ 17(a).)
8. In his Declaration, Edelman then proceeds to describe the actions Poole took6 to fulfill the FOIA requests as follows: Poole then reviewed the request and confirmed that the records being sought were National Office records. (Id.)
9. On or around April 5, 2018, Poole contacted the Office of Chief Counsel Library concerning the request for "[a]ny OCC Code and Subject Matter Directory in effect between 8/1/2013 and 11/19/2013" because she knew that the Library had accessto historic versions of the Office of Chief Counsel's code and subject matter directories. (Id. ¶¶ 6,(a), 17(b).)
10. Reference Librarian Dawn Bohls emailed Poole copies of the requested directories. (Id.)
11. On April 6, 2018, Poole began her search for the third category of records: "[fi]les regarding PLR 201502008." (Id. ¶ 17(c).)
12. Poole began her search using the Office of Chief Counsel's case management information system ("CASE-MIS"). (Id.)
13. CASE-MIS and its subsystems are an electronic case management system that are used, among other purposes, to track cases within the Office of Chief Counsel. (Id.)
14. All cases, including PLRs, are assigned a case number in CASE-MIS. (Id.)
15. Because the third category of records pertained to PLR files, CASE-MIS was the appropriate system to search for responsive records and to determine the location of responsive records. (Id.)
16. Poole searched CASE-MIS for "201502008." (Id. ¶ 17(d).)
17. CASE-MIS indicated that 201502008 was a written determination number that corresponded to case number PLR-147816-13. (Id.)
18. CASE-MIS further indicated that the file for PLR-147816-13 was closed. (Id. ¶ 17(e).)
19. Records maintained in closed legal files are generally stored in the Docket, Records and User Fee ("DRU") branch within the Office of Chief Counsel. (Id.)
20. CASE-MIS indicated that the PLR-147816-13 filed was checked out of DRU's fileroom at that time to an Office of Chief Counsel attorney. (Id.)
21. On April 6, 2018, Poole contacted that Office of Chief Counsel attorney and requested access to the file. (Id.)
22. On April 9, 2018, that attorney returned the PLR-147816 file to DRU, and Poole checked out the file. (Id.)
23. On April 9, 2018, Poole contacted Edelman to confirm that DLS was in possession of the records responsive to the FOIA request. (Id. ¶ 18.)
24. On April 19, 2018, Poole emailed Edelman a search response memorandum on behalf of the Office of Chief Counsel. (Id. ¶ 19.)
25. The search response memorandum included the Office of Chief Counsel's disclosure recommendations for the responsive records. (Id.)
26. Edelman declared he was not aware of any other custodian or location likely to maintain records responsive to Scott's FOIA request. (Id. ¶ 20.)
27. Upon completion of the search for records, Edelman personally reviewed the documents and stated in his declaration that he attempted to release every reasonably segregable non-exempt portion of every responsive document. (Id. ¶ 5.)
28. The IRS found a total of 826 pages of records that were responsive to Scott's FOIA request. (Id. ¶ 12.) Of these pages, the IRS initially released 660 pages in full and 36 pages in part. The IRS withheld 47 pages in part7 and 130 pages in whole.8
(Id.)
29. The IRS claimed the right to withhold pages of the responsive records pursuant to FOIA Exemption 3 in conjunction with 26 U.S.C. § 6103(a), FOIA Exemption 5 in conjunction with the deliberative process privilege, and FOIA Exemption 6. (Id. ¶ 21.)
"The purpose of FOIA is to encourage public disclosure of information so citizens may understand what their government is doing." Office of Capital Collateral Counsel, N. Region of Fla. ex rel. Mordenti v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 331 F.3d 799, 802 (11th Cir. 2003) ("Capital Collateral Counsel"). "Congress enacted FOIA to 'enable the public to have access to government information that is unnecessarily shielded from public view.'" Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. U.S., 516 F.3d 1235, 1244 (11th Cir. 2008) ("Miccosukee Tribe") (quoting Nadler v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 955 F.2d 1479, 1484 (11th Cir. 1992)). Accordingly, "the records at issue . . . are presumed to be subject to disclosure unless" Defendant "affirmatively establishes . . . the requested records fall into one of FOIA's exemptions." Capital Collateral Counsel, 331 F.3d at 802 (alterations added; citation omitted); see also Light v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 968 F. Supp. 2d 11, 26 (D.D.C. 2013) .
A court reviews an agency's response to a FOIA request de novo, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B), and FOIA cases typically and appropriately are decided on motions for summary judgment. Kissinger v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136, 139 (1980). Courts will grant summary judgment if the movant shows that thereis no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). More specifically, in a FOIA action to compel production of agency records, the agency "is entitled to summary judgment if no material facts are in dispute and if it demonstrates 'that each document that falls within the class requested either has been produced ... or is wholly exempt from the [FOIA's] inspection requirements.'" Students Against Genocide v. U.S. Dep't of State, 257 F.3d 828, 833 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (quoting Goland v. CIA, 607 F.2d 339, 352 (D.C. Cir. 1978)). "To 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....
To continue reading
Request your trial