Reclaim the Records v. United States Dep't of State

1

RECLAIM THE RECORDS and ALEC FERRETTI, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Defendant.

No. 23 Civ. 1650 (JPC)

United States District Court, S.D. New York

September 9, 2024

OPINION AND ORDER

JOHN P. CRONAN, United States District Judge

Plaintiff Reclaim the Records is a nonprofit organization-of which Plaintiff Alec Ferretti is a board member-devoted to acquiring genealogical and archival data from government sources and making it available to the public at no cost. On June 28, 2021, Plaintiffs submitted a request to Defendant U.S. Department of State under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, seeking the release of all information associated with deceased passport holders. After not receiving a response from the Department Plaintiffs brought this action to compel production. Before the Court are the parties' cross motions for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant argues that its search was adequate and that, even it could cull its files in the manner advocated by Plaintiffs to create an extract of the responsive records, it need not undertake that monumental and onerous task. The Court agrees. Thus, and for the reasons that follow Defendant's motion is granted, and Plaintiffs' motion is denied.

I. Background

A. Facts^[1]

The Department of State maintains all passport records for the United States. Dkt. 29 (“Ballard Decl.”) ¶ 8. Those records come in two formats: paper records and electronic files. Id. The physical records are stored at the Washington National Records Center of the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration (“NARA”), and the electronic records are kept in a database called the Passport Information Electronic Records System (“PIERS”). Id. ¶¶ 8-10. The data in PIERS are “stored as ‘images' because the Department scanned and imported the actual physical copies of passport records. Each saved image of a passport record has a unique image identification number, which PIERS uses to retrieve the appropriate image to display to the user.” Dkt. 42 (“Westmark Decl.”) ¶ 9. The “unique data ID” associated with each record in PIERS is “called a ‘PRISM file number' . . ., which is how the respective image is referenced and returned in PIERS.” Id. ¶ 12. The NARA records and the digitized records in PIERS are imperfect matches, however-not all passport records have been digitized, and some paper records no longer exist. Ballard Decl. ¶ 10.

PIERS serves as the front-end interface to a series of databases, each containing a subset of all information kept in a recordholder's file, thereby allowing users to retrieve passport data and images. Westmark Decl. ¶¶ 11-12. Such information includes a passport holder's name, Social Security Number, date and place of birth, contact information, and PRISM number. Id. ¶ 12. But the file does not include any information about whether the individual is deceased. Ballard Decl. ¶ 10. And because each scanned and digitized document is assigned a different PRISM number, one recordholder could be associated with multiple unique PRISM numbers. Westmark Decl. ¶ 13.

To retrieve a passport record in PIERS, a user inputs an individual's personal identifiable information (“PII”)-such as name, date of birth, or Social Security Number. Id. ¶ 7; Ballard Decl. ¶ 10. PIERS then generates a list of responsive individuals with links to the respective images of the records. Westmark Decl. ¶¶ 7, 9-12. A maximum of 250 results are returned for each search, even if the volume of responsive records exceeds that number. Id. ¶ 7; Ballard Decl. ¶ 10.

Separately from any passport data, the State Department also maintains Consular Reports of Deaths of a U.S. Citizen Abroad (“CRDAs”). Ballard Decl. ¶¶ 12, 14. These reports are created when a U.S. citizen passes away while in another country and the passing is reported to a U.S. embassy or consulate. Id. ¶ 12. While CRDAs typically include information about the citizen's birth date and circumstances surrounding the death, they may not contain passport data. Id. As with the passport data, the State Department stores CDRAs in paper and electronic format. Id. While not all paper records of CDRAs have been digitized, those that have been are accessible through PIERS. Id. ¶¶ 13-14.

On June 28, 2021, Ferretti and Reclaim the Records together submitted a FOIA request to the State Department for “an extract of all information for deceased passport holders maintained in the passport database.” Dkt. 35 (“Rankin Decl.”), Exh. A (“FOIA Request”). Plaintiffs limited their request to deceased passport holders because they recognized that “information on living passport holders may not be disclosed under FOIA.” Id. Plaintiffs also asked the Department to identify responsive records by using a proxy for death-100 years or more since birth. Id. They therefore requested “data for all people whose date of birth is on or before June 28, 1920 or the date of processing of this request,^[2]whichever is later.” Id. All data was requested in electronic format. Id.

B. Procedural History

After twenty-one months without a response, Plaintiffs initiated this suit on February 27, 2023, seeking to compel production of the FOIA Request. Dkt. 1 (“Compl.”). The parties initially sought to resolve the dispute outside of court. See Dkt. 11. During the ensuing discussions, Plaintiffs provided Defendant with copies of certain of the Department of State's own documents. First, Plaintiffs sent Defendant a copy of a Privacy Impact Assessment for PIERS, dated October 2020. Rankin Decl., Exh. C (“PIA”). The Assessment provides technical information about PIERS and how the application addresses privacy concerns. Id. Days later, Plaintiffs sent Defendant a Memorandum of Understanding between the State Department and the U.S. Census Bureau, dated January 3, 2020. Ballard Decl. ¶ 11; id., Exh. 3 (“MOU”). This memorandum describes an agreement through which the State Department provided “an extract of all available specified digital U.S. passport data” to the Census Bureau for it “to use the data for statistical purposes only.” MOU §§ (3), (7)(A); see Ballard Decl. ¶ 11.

The parties were ultimately unable to resolve the matter without the Court's intervention. Dkt. 17. On January 30, 2024, Defendant responded to the FOIA Request, advising Ferretti that it had “located no responsive records subject to the FOIA.” Ballard Decl., Exh. 2. Defendant thereafter moved for summary judgment on February 1, 2024. Dkt. 28; Ballard Decl.; Dkt. 30 (“Deft. SJ Br.”). On March 28, 2024, Plaintiffs opposed Defendant's motion and filed their own cross-motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 34; Rankin Decl.; Dkt. 36 (“Schnell Decl.”); Pls. Opp. & SJ Br. Defendant filed their opposition to Plaintiffs' motion and reply in support of its motion on June 27, 2024. Dkt. 40 (“Deft. Reply & Opp. Br.”); Dkt. 41 (“Ballard Suppl. Decl.”); Westmark Decl. Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their motion on August 12, 2024. Dkt. 45 (“Pls. Reply Br.”).

II. Legal Standard

“[S]ummary judgment is the preferred procedural vehicle for resolving FOIA disputes.” Bloomberg L.P. v. Bd. of Governors of Fed. Rsrv. Sys., 649 F.Supp.2d 262, 271 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). “As with all motions for summary judgment, summary judgment in a FOIA action should be granted only if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id.; see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986).

“In resolving summary judgment motions in a FOIA case, a district court proceeds primarily by affidavits in lieu of other documentary or testimonial evidence.” Long v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 692 F.3d 185, 190 (2d Cir. 2012); accord N.Y. Times Co. v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 872 F.Supp.2d 309, 314 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (“The general rule in this Circuit is that in FOIA actions, agency affidavits alone will support a grant of summary judgment, and Local Civil Rule 56.1 statements are not required.” (alteration adopted and internal quotation marks omitted)). Agency affidavits are “accorded a presumption of good faith,” which “cannot be rebutted by purely speculative claims about the existence and discoverability of other documents.” Grand Cent. P'ship, Inc. v. Cuomo, 166 F.3d 473, 489 (2d Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). To establish a basis for summary judgment, the affidavits must “contain reasonable specificity of detail rather than merely conclusory statements,” and must not be “called into question by contradictory evidence in the record or by evidence of agency bad faith.” Id. at 478 (emphasis and internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, where the agency's “submissions are adequate on their face, district courts may forgo discovery and award summary judgment on the basis of affidavits.” N.Y. Times Co. v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 550 F.Supp.3d 26, 31 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). And the non-moving party “cannot defeat the motion by relying on the allegations in his pleading, or on conclusory statements, or on mere assertions that affidavits supporting the motion are not credible.” Gottlieb v. Cnty. of Orange, 84 F.3d 511, 518 (2d Cir. 1996) (citation omitted).

As noted above, the parties have cross-moved for summary judgment. The Court “need not enter judgment for either party” when cross-motions for summary judgment are filed. Morales v. Quintel Ent., Inc., 249 F.3d 115 121 (2d Cir. 2001). Generally, the Court evaluates each crossmotion independently of the other, considering the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id. “But where, as here, the motion and cross-motion seek a determination of the same issues, the Court may consider them together.” ...