Pinson v. U.S. Dep't of Justice

JEREMY PINSON, Plaintiff, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No.: 12-1872 (RC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

August 31, 2017

Re Document Nos.: 332, 336

MEMORANDUM OPINION

GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE

I. INTRODUCTION

Pro se Plaintiff Jeremy Pinson has filed multiple Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, requests with various components of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). At issue here are certain requests she¹ submitted to the Executive Office of the United States Attorneys (EOUSA). Although the EOUSA responded to the requests, Pinson challenged its responses. This Court has already granted in part and denied in part two motions for summary judgment concerning these requests. See generally 1st Mem. Op., Pinson v. DOJ, 145 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2015), ECF No. 246; 2d Mem. Op., Pinson v. DOJ, 189 F. Supp. 3d 137 (D.D.C. 2016), ECF No. 291.

Now before the Court is the DOJ's third motion for summary judgment as to the five remaining FOIA requests,² Def.'s 3d Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 332, as well as a motion by Pinson to strike the DOJ's motion, Mot. Strike, ECF No. 336. For the reasons stated below, the Court will again grant in part and deny in part the DOJ's motion for summary judgment, and deny Pinson's motion to strike.

II. BACKGROUND

This Court has explained the factual background in detail in its prior Memorandum Opinions. See 1st Mem. Op., Pinson v. DOJ, 145 F. Supp. 3d 1, 5-7 (D.D.C. 2015), ECF No. 246; 2d Mem. Op., Pinson v. DOJ, 189 F. Supp. 3d 137, 141-45 (D.D.C. 2016), ECF No. 291. The Court therefore confines its discussion to the facts most relevant to the five requests at issue in the present motion.

A. Request No. 12-1754

Request No. 12-1754 sought the "production of all documents, emails, [and] records" related to Case No. SACR 07-202(A)-DOC in the Central District of California. See 3d Luczynski Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 332-3;³ Freedom of Information Act Request, ECF No. 254-4, Ex. P.⁴ Pinson did not specifically limit the amount of search time or pages produced by this request. Freedom of Information Act Request, ECF No. 254-4, Ex. P. Pinson later clarified as part of an appeal that this request included public records. Freedom of Information Act Appeal (Oct. 31, 2013), ECF No. 254-4, Ex. T (complaining that the agency "failed to release public records").⁵

After the Court denied the DOJ's second motion for summary judgment concerning this request,⁶ the DOJ performed another search for "responsive records, including public records." 3d Luczynski Decl. ¶ 6. The FOIA coordinator interpreted the (A) at the end of the case number to refer to the records concerning one of the defendants in the overall case, Jesse Vasquez. Rhedrick Decl. ¶ 7, ECF No. 332-3, Ex. A. The FOIA coordinator determined that the case wasclosed, and obtained twenty physical boxes of records relating to Case No. SACR 07-202. Rhedrick Decl. ¶¶ 11-12. The FOIA coordinator performed a manual search of all twenty boxes by looking for Jesse Vasquez's name in the caption or header of documents. Rhedrick Decl. ¶¶ 13-14. This search resulted in 78 responsive pages, which the FOIA coordinator transmitted to the EOUSA. Rhedrick Decl. ¶ 15. The EOUSA released all of the pages—in full and without redactions—to Pinson. See 3d Luczynski Decl. ¶ 7; Letter from Thomas Anderson to Jeremy Pinson (Oct. 27, 2016), ECF No. 332-3, Ex. B.⁷

Although the EOUSA has previously asserted that FOIA Exemption 7(A) justified withholding some responsive documents while the underlying case was pending appeal, see ECF No. 254-2 at 7-8, the case is now closed and the Court understands that the EOUSA searched for all responsive records and did not withhold any documents from the results of the current search. See Rhedrick Decl. ¶ 9 ("Case View is the computer case tracking system used by the USA . . . to locate any and all corresponding files." (emphasis added)); Rhedrick Decl. ¶ 11 ("[A]ll documents concerning closed cases are to be stored [within the twenty boxes searched]." (emphasis added)); Rhedrick Decl. ¶¶ 13-14 ("I personally searched through twenty boxes of documents . . . Due to the large number of documents in the 20 boxes of records relating to this case, it took me approximately two hours to search them by hand."). The DOJ now moves for summary judgment on the grounds that it conducted a search reasonably calculated to identify all responsive records and it has released all responsive records in full. See Defs.' Mem. Supp. 3d Mot. for Summ. J. (Defs.' 3d MSJ) at 5, ECF No. 332-2.

B. Request No. 12-1757

Request No. 12-1757 sought the "production of all documents, emails, or records" for cases 11-cv-1906,⁸ 11-cv-1346, and 10-cv-949 in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. See 3d Luczynski Decl. ¶ 8; Freedom of Information Act Request, ECF No. 254-4, Ex. Y.⁹ Pinson did not explicitly limit the number of pages produced or search time occupied by this request. Freedom of Information Act Request, ECF No. 254-4, Ex. Y. Pinson later clarified during an appeal that this request also sought public records. Freedom of Information Act Appeal (Oct. 31, 2013), ECF No. 254-4, Ex. T (complaining that the agency "failed to release public records").

After the Court denied the DOJ's second motion for summary judgment,¹⁰ the EOUSA conducted a new search. See 2d Matuszewski Decl. ¶ 14, ECF No. 332-3, Ex. C. The FOIAcoordinator used the Middle District of Pennsylvania's electronic case management system to identify records relating to case 11-cv-1906 and 10-cv-949,¹¹ and obtained those case files from the National Archives. 2d Matuszewski Decl. ¶ 15. A search of the case files produced a total of 197 responsive pages of documents, which were forwarded to the EOUSA. 2d Matuszewski Decl. ¶¶ 17-18. The EOUSA's declaration does not explain what type of search was performed on the files, or how examining the files "produced" the stated number of pages. See 2d Matuszewski Decl. ¶¶ 16-18 ("A request to the Federal Records Center was made to retrieve case files 11-CV-1906 and 10-CV-949. A second search of 11-CV-1906 produced 22 pages of correspondence, e-mails, declarations and inmate data from the Bureau of Prisons as well as 67 pages of court-filed documents. . . . A second search of 10-CV-949 produced 14 pages of correspondence and e-mails as well as 94 pages of court-filed documents."). Similarly, while the EOUSA's declaration states that "[a]n additional computer search of the USAO MDPA files was performed and no documents were located for neither [sic] civil numbers 11-CV-1906 nor 10-CV-949," the declaration does not explain how the search was performed, or what search terms were used. 2d Matuszewski Decl. ¶ 19.

The EOUSA subsequently released 200 pages of records¹² in full to Pinson. 3d Luczynski Decl. ¶ 13, ECF No. 332-3; Letter from Thomas Anderson to Jeremy Pinson (Oct. 27, 2016), ECF No. 332-3, Ex. D. This 200 pages appears to have included both the 67 and 94 pages of "court-filed documents" identified from the two cases as well as 22 and 14 pages of correspondence, emails, and other Bureau of Prisons documents. 2d Matuszewski Decl. ¶¶ 17-18. It is unclear from the EOUSA's filings if the search was intended to produce all responsive documents, or the search was only for public records (or, alternatively, if non-public records were withheld from the release). See 2d Matuszewski Decl. ¶ 14 ("I was directed . . . to perform a second search of the files located . . . and to provide all documents contained within the files."); 2d Matuszewski Decl. ¶ 20 ("All systems of records located within USAO/MDPA that were likely to contain records responsive to Pinson's request have been searched. The searches were reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant records responsive to Pinson's request."). But see 3d Luczynski Decl. ¶ 13 ("A new search for publicly filed responsive records . . . has revealed 200 pages of responsive public records to plaintiff's request."). The DOJ now again moves for summary judgment, this time on the basis that its search was reasonably calculated to identify all responsive records without withholdings. See Defs.' 3d MSJ at 8.

C. Request No. 12-1758

Request No. 12-1758 sought the "production of all documents, emails, or records" regarding cases 11-cv-140-KSF, 11-cv-96-HRW, and 10-cv-299-HRW in the Eastern District of Kentucky. See 3d Luczynski Decl. ¶ 14; Freedom of Information Act Request, ECF No. 254-4,Ex. Y.¹³ Pinson did not limit the search time or number of pages generated by this request. Freedom of Information Act Request, ECF No. 254-4, Ex. Y. Pinson later clarified as part of an appeal that this request also sought public records. Freedom of Information Act Appeal (Oct. 31, 2013), ECF No. 254-4, Ex. T (complaining that the agency "failed to release public records").

After the Court denied the DOJ's second motion for summary judgment,¹⁴ the EOUSA performed a new search for responsive records. Long Decl., ECF No. 332-3, Ex. F. The FOIA coordinator for the Eastern District of Kentucky searched the district's electronic case management system and PACER for records responsive to each of the case numbers. Long Decl. ¶¶ 8-9. The search of the case management system did not produce any records relating to 11-cv-96 or 11-cv-140. Long Decl. ¶ 11. A PACER search for the two cases revealed that "[the] office was never served or involved in [these] cases," Long Decl. ¶ 11, explaining the lack of records. The case management system did contain files relating to 11-cv-299. Long Decl. ¶ 11. According to the FOIA coordinator, these files comprised four volumes of pleadings, twovolumes of correspondence, and several file folders. Long Decl. ¶ 11. The FOIA coordinator then "forwarded all documents in these files" to the EOUSA. Long Decl. ¶ 12. The EOUSA released 100 pages in full to Pinson free of charge and informed her...