Sabra v. U.S. Customs & Border Prot.

FLETA CHRISTINA C. SABRA, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES CUSTOMSAND BORDER PROTECTION, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 20-681 (CKK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

March 2, 2021

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This lawsuit arises from a Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request made by Plaintiff Fleta Christina C. Sabra ("Plaintiff") to Defendant United States Customs and Border Protection ("Defendant"). Plaintiff sought records regarding an encounter with Customs and Border Protection agents at a port of entry in California in September 2015, and Defendant's subsequent investigation thereof. See Compl. ¶¶ 2, 9, ECF No. 1. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's [7] Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, in which Plaintiff seeks judgment as a matter of law on her claims that (1) Defendant failed to adjudicate her request for expedited processing within the 10-day period required by FOIA; and (2) that Defendant has violated FOIA by failing to "make records promptly available to her in the three years since she sought them." Pl.'s Mot. at 1. Upon review of the pleadings,¹ the relevant legal authority, and the record as a whole, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated that she is entitled to judgment on the pleadings as to either claim. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleges that on September 11, 2015, she was unlawfully detained and physically assaulted by Customs and Border Patrol agents at a port of entry in Southern California. Compl. ¶¶ 2-3, ECF No. 1. On May 5, 2017, Plaintiff submitted to Defendant a FOIA request seeking "[a]ll agency records" including "video, database entries, photographs, communications . . ., memoranda, investigative reports, and other things" related to Plaintiff's encounter with CBP. Id. ¶¶ 74-75. Plaintiff requested expedited processing of her FOIA request. Id. ¶ 9. On May 9, 2017, Defendant assigned Plaintiff's FOIA request a tracking number and placed it on the "Simple Track" for processing. Id. ¶ 76. Plaintiff claims that as of March 9, 2020—the date she filed her Complaint in this action—Defendant had neither responded to Plaintiff's FOIA request nor adjudicated her request for expedited processing. Id. ¶ 77. In its Answer, Defendant admits that as of March 9, 2020, it had "not issued a final response to Plaintiff's May 5, 2017 FOIA request or a response to Plaintiff's request for expedited processing." Answer ¶ 77, ECF No. 5. Plaintiff claims that she received an email from Defendant on May 25, 2020 notifying her that her request for expedited processing had been denied. See Pl.'s 6/9/20 Status Rep. at 5, ECF No. 9.

On May 21, 2020, Plaintiff filed her present Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, in which she argues that she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to Count I of her Complaint, specifically that (1) Defendant violated the expedited processing provisions of FOIA and (2) Defendant failed to make records "promptly available" to her. Pl.'s Mot. at 3.

On June 1, 2020—while they were still briefing Plaintiff's Motion—the parties each filed a status report. Both parties indicated that Defendant had completed its search for potentially responsive records and that it was "currently processing" 13,794 pages of potentially responsive records, three audio files, and video files comprising "several hours." See Pl.'s 6/1/20 StatusRep. at 2; Def.'s 6/1/20 Status Rep. at 2, ECF No. 11. Both parties also noted that Defendant made its first production of responsive, non-exempt documents to Plaintiff on May 29, 2020. See Pl.'s 6/1/20 Status Rep. at 2, 8; Def.'s 6/1/20 Status Rep. at 2.

The parties filed additional individual status reports on August 12, 2020. Defendant stated that it had completed its review of potentially responsive records and had released 143 pages with redactions to Plaintiff on June 11, 2020 and subsequently released a "modified" version of those pages on June 23, 2020. See Def.'s 8/12/20 Status Rep. at 2, ECF No. 14. Defendant also indicated that it had completed its review of three audio records and one video file and released redacted versions to Plaintiff on July 7, 2020 and August 10, 2020. Id. Defendant noted that the only records remaining to be processed were seven video files with associated audio totaling 102 minutes of footage. Id. Due to the "inconsistent quality of videos" and the "time required to apply redactions," Defendant indicated that its "best current estimate" to complete its review was "two to eight months." Id. Plaintiff indicated in her status report that she was "in receipt of what [Defendant] appears to believe are all responsive agency records other than a limited number of video and audio files," but contested the adequacy of Defendant's search and its exemption claims. See Pl.'s 8/12/20 Status Rep. at 1, ECF No. 15. Plaintiff also requested that the Court hold a status conference due to purported difficulties conferring with counsel for Defendant. Id. at 7-8.

The Court held a status conference on August 21, 2020, during which the Court discussed with the parties the status of Defendant's response to Plaintiff's FOIA request and Plaintiff's pending motion. See 8/21/20 Minute Order. The Court found that Defendant's estimate that processing the remaining video files would take from two to eight months was not reasonable, and ordered Defendant to file a notice providing an updated timeline to complete this process. Id.The Court further noted that it would hold in abeyance Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings pending an update from the parties regarding remaining disputes. Id.

Defendant subsequently notified the Court that it would complete its processing of remaining video files by October 31, 2020. Def.'s Notice, ECF No. 17. On November 12, 2020, the parties filed a Joint Status Report indicating that Defendant had released the remaining video files, provided a draft Vaughn Index, and had made a supplemental production to Plaintiff of records relating to other individuals traveling with Plaintiff during her encounter with CBP agents in September 2015. See Joint Status Report at 1, ECF No. 19. In their next Joint Status Report on December 15, 2020, the parties requested that the Court enter a summary judgment briefing schedule, noting that Plaintiff intends to challenge the adequacy of Defendant's search for responsive records and the propriety of its claimed withholdings. See Joint Status Report at 1, ECF No. 20. The Court entered the schedule requested by the parties. See 12/18/20 Minute Order.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) permits any party to move for judgment on the pleadings "after the pleadings are closed—but early enough not to delay trial." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). A motion brought under Rule 12(c) is "designed to dispose of cases where the material facts are not in dispute and a judgment on the merits can be rendered by looking at the substance of the pleadings and any judicially noted facts." Tapp v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., 306 F. Supp. 3d 383, 391 (D.D.C. 2016) (internal citations and quotations omitted).

"Because Rule 12(c) provides judicial resolution at an early stage of a case, the party seeking judgment on the pleadings shoulders a heavy burden of justification." District No. 1 Pac. Coast Dist., Marine Engineers Beneficial Ass'n AFL-CIO v. Liberty Maritime Corp., 933 F.3d751, 760 (D.C. Cir. 2019). The moving party "must demonstrate its entitlement to judgment in its favor, even though the 'court evaluating the 12(c) motion will accept as true the allegations in the opponent's pleadings and as false all controverted assertions of the movant."' Id. at 760-61 (quoting Haynesworth v. Miller, 820 F.2d 1245, 1249 n. 11 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (collecting cases), abg'd on other grounds by Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006)). A judgment on the pleadings "is not appropriate if there are issues of fact which if proved would defeat recovery." Id. (internal citations omitted); see also Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Energy, 888 F. Supp. 2d 189, 191 (D.D.C. 2012) ("The moving party must show that no material issue of fact remains to be solved.").

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff argues that she is entitled to judgment on the pleadings as to her claims that Defendant violated FOIA by failing (1) to respond to her request for expedited processing request within 10 days and (2) to make records "promptly available" to her. Pl.'s Mot. at 1. The nature of the relief Plaintiff seeks is not entirely clear; she requests that "the Court enter judgment in [her] favor that Defendant has violated FOIA" and that the Court "order" Defendant "to complete its search, review, and production." Id. at 3. Then, in her Reply, Plaintiff asks the Court to "[d]eclare that [Defendant] violated" FOIA's requirements to respond to requests for expedited processing within 10 days and to make records "promptly available." Pl.'s Reply at 9. Accordingly, the Court construes Plaintiff's motion as seeking both injunctive and declaratory relief based on her claims that Defendant has failed to respond to her expedited processing request and to make records "promptly available." The Court finds that neither form of relief is appropriate at this time, and so shall deny Plaintiff's motion.

FOIA requires federal agencies to "make available to the public information." 5 U.S.C. § 552(a). The purpose of providing information to the public is "to ensure an informed citizenry, vital to the functioning of a democratic society, needed to check against corruption and to hold governors accountable to the governed." NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 242 (1976). To achieve this goal, FOIA requires that an agency determine, within twenty working days, whether or not to comply with a FOIA request. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(I). Once the agency makes such a determination, FOIA requires the agency to make the records "promptly available." Citizens for Resp. &...