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

ROGER CHARLES DAY, JR., Plaintiff, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 17-1418 (EGS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

March 6, 2020

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Roger Charles Day, Jr. ("plaintiff"), brings this action under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), see 5 U.S.C. § 552, against the United States Department of State ("State Department" or "defendant"). This matter is before the Court on defendant's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 34)¹ and plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint (ECF No. 41-1 at 6-13). For the reasons discussed below, the Court will grant the former and deny the latter.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleges that he was "imprisoned in Mexican Federal Prisons at the behest of the United States" where he was subjected to "physical[] torture[] by Mexican officials with the full knowledge and upon the orders of U.S. officials" in the months preceding his extradition to the United States in December 2010. Compl. (ECF No. 1) ¶ 3; see Def.'s Reformatted Statement ofMaterial Facts As To Which There Is No Genuine Issue (ECF No. 39-1, "State SMF"). This civil action pertains to plaintiff's August 9, 2013, FOIA request to the State Department, Case Control Number P-2013-1467, for information about himself. State SMF ¶¶ 1-2; see Compl. ¶¶ 2-3; Def.'s Corrected Mem. of P. & A. in Support of Defs.' Mot. for Summ. J. (ECF No. 34, "Def.'s Mem."), Decl. of Eric F. Stein (ECF No. 34-1, "Stein Decl."), Ex. 2 at 1. In relevant part, the request states:

This request should be directed to records specifically but not limited to, the US Embassy in Mexico between the years 2008 and 2011. The Records of Vice Counsel David Haskett working at the same embassy in 2010. As well as all documents [and] communications between the US Embassy and the United Mexican States regarding Roger Charles Day[,] Jr. and his torture and transfer to Villa Aldama prison in Veracruz[,] Mexico on August 12, 2009[.] Records from the OCS of the Bureau of Consular Affairs CA and Office of Legal Advisor of the D.O.S. and Office of Law Enforcement and Intelligence (L/LEI) with D.O.S.

Stein Decl., Ex. 2 at 2.

The Office of Information Programs and Services ("IPS") is responsible for responding to FOIA requests for State Department records. Id. ¶¶ 1-2. IPS staff "evaluates [each] request to determine which offices, overseas posts, or other records systems . . . may reasonably be expected to contain the records requested." Id. ¶ 15. Staff bases its determination "on the description of the records requested and a familiarity with the holdings of the [State] Department's records systems, applicable records disposition schedules, and the substantive and functional mandates of numerous . . . offices and Foreign Service posts and missions." Id. Here, the declarant states that IPS staff identified three components where documents responsive to plaintiff's FOIA request likely would be maintained: the Office of the Legal Advisor, the United States Embassy in Mexico City, and the Office of Overseas Citizens Services within the Bureau of Consular Affairs. Id. ¶ 18.

The State Department located a total of 54 responsive documents. Id. ¶ 37; State SMF ¶¶ 3-8. Of these documents, it released 17 in full, released 29 in part, and withheld eight documents in full. Stein Decl. ¶ 37; State SMF ¶ 36. Where the State Department withheld information, it relied on FOIA Exemptions 5, 6 and 7(C). See generally Stein Decl., Ex. 1 (ECF No. 34-2, "Vaughn Index"); State SMF ¶¶ 27-33. According to the declarant, the State Department searched all locations reasonably likely to maintain documents responsive to plaintiff's FOIA request and released all reasonably segregable information. Stein Decl. ¶ 37; State SMF ¶¶ 34, 37.

II. DISCUSSION

A. The State Department's Corrected Motion for Summary Judgment

1. Summary Judgment Standard

The Court grants summary judgment 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). "FOIA cases typically and appropriately are decided on motions for summary judgment." Defenders of Wildlife v. U.S. Border Patrol, 623 F. Supp. 2d 83, 87 (D.D.C. 2009) (citations omitted). "Under FOIA, all underlying facts and inferences are analyzed in the light most favorable to the FOIA requester; as such, only after an agency proves that it has fully discharged its FOIA obligations is summary judgment appropriate." Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, 60 F. Supp. 3d 1, 6 (D.D.C. 2014) (citations omitted).

An agency may meet its burden solely on the basis of affidavits or declarations, see Valencia-Lucena v. U.S. Coast Guard, 180 F.3d 321, 326 (D.C. Cir. 1999), as long as they "describe the documents and the justifications for nondisclosure with reasonably specific detail, demonstrate that the information withheld logically falls within the claimed exemption, and arenot controverted by either contrary evidence in the record [or] by evidence of agency bad faith," Military Audit Project v. Casey, 656 F.2d 724, 738 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (footnote omitted). The opposing party cannot survive summary judgment with "[m]ere allegations or denials in [his] pleadings[.]" Williams v. Callaghan, 938 F. Supp. 46, 49 (D.D.C. 1996). Rather, he "must come forward with 'specific facts' demonstrating a genuine issue." Saldana v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 715 F. Supp. 2d 10, 19 (D.D.C. 2010) (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986)).

2. Plaintiff's Response to the Corrected Summary Judgment Motion

The State Department filed its initial summary judgment motion (ECF No. 31) on April 17, 2019. The Court issued an order (ECF No. 32) on April 18, 2019 advising plaintiff of his obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the local rules of this Court to respond to defendant's motion. The order specifically warned plaintiff that, if he did not respond by May 31, 2019, the Court would treat the motion as conceded and, if warranted, enter judgment in defendant's favor. On April 19, 2019, defendant filed its motion (ECF No. 33) for leave to file a corrected motion for summary judgment. By minute order on April 24, 2019, the Court granted defendant leave to file its corrected motion and extended plaintiff's opposition deadline to June 21, 2019.

Pursuant to the Standing Order Governing Civil Cases Before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan (ECF No. 6), the party moving for summary judgment "shall include a separate document entitled Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute . . . formatted as a two-column table," Standing Order ¶ 13.a. (emphasis removed), and "promptly provide an electronic copy in editable format to the opposing party," id. ¶ 13.b. By letter dated April 26, 2019 (ECF No. 37), plaintiff noted defendant's failure to submit its Statement of Material Facts in the proper format.In its June 26, 2019 minute order, the Court directed defendant to resubmit its Statement of Material Facts by July 5, 2019, and extended plaintiff's opposition deadline to August 16, 2019. Defendant timely refiled Defendant's Reformatted Statement of Material Facts As To Which There Is No Genuine Issue (ECF No. 39-1) and served a copy on plaintiff.

On August 12, 2019, the Clerk of Court received an envelope from plaintiff containing four documents: (1) a two-page handwritten cover letter dated August 6, 2019 (ECF No. 41 at 1-2); (2) a one-page motion dated July 13, 2019, which the Court construes as a request to deny defendant's corrected motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 41 at 3, "Pl.'s Mot. to Deny MSJ"); (3) a document titled "FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT/JURY DEMAND," which the Court construes as a motion for leave to amend the complaint (ECF No. 41 at 6-13, "Mot. to Am. Compl.") (emphasis in original); and (4) a document designated "Exhibit A" which the Court construes as plaintiff's opposition to defendant's corrected motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 41-1 at 14-20, "Pl.'s Opp'n").²

Plaintiff argues that counsel's failure to supply him with an editable Word version of the State Department's Statement of Material Facts warrants denial of its motion for summary judgment in its entirety. See Pl.'s Mot. to Deny MSJ at 1. Given the "the clear preference of the Federal Rules to resolve disputes on their merits," Cohen v. Bd. of Trustees of the Univ. of the District of Columbia, 819 F.3d 476, 482 (D.C. Cir. 2016), the Court will not deny defendant's motion on this ground, see, e.g., Orellana v. NBSB Inc., 332 F. Supp. 3d 252, 255 n.2 (D.D.C. 2018) (denying request to summarily deny "plaintiffs' motion because their Statement ofUndisputed Material Facts as to Which No Genuine Issue Exists in Support of Their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment does not comply with the Court's General Order").

Next, plaintiff attempts to put forth his own Statement of Material Facts Not In Dispute predicated upon defendant's purported failure to respond to his written discovery requests. Plaintiff claims to have "served 2 sets of Request[s] for Admission[] upon the Defendant during the course of the instant litigation." Pl.'s Opp'n at 1 (page numbers designated by plaintiff). The first set is attached to plaintiff's response (ECF No. 20, "Pl.'s Resp. to Notice,") to defendant's Notice to Court (ECF No. 15). It appears that plaintiff's requests for admission seek evidence supporting plaintiff's assertion that State Department officials conspired with government attorneys, including those who prosecuted the criminal case against him in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, to cause plaintiff's detention and torture in Mexico. See Pl.'s Resp. to Notice at 2; Pl.'s Opp'n at 2.

According to plaintiff, he mailed a second set of requests for admission to defendant's counsel and to the Clerk of Court on March 5, 2019. Pl.'s Opp'n at 1. The Court denied leave to file this document (ECF No. 40)...