Schaefer v. United States Envtl. Prot. Agency

1

JASON PAUL SCHAEFER, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Defendant.

No. 20-cv-2702 (CRC)

United States District Court, District of Columbia

March 28, 2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION

CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Jason Paul Schaefer, a federal inmate located in Beaumont Texas, filed this Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), seeking disclosure of documents about him and the criminal prosecution that led to his incarceration. After he filed suit, EPA conducted a search of multiple databases for records mentioning Schaefer or his criminal case. EPA produced all responsive records uncovered by its search, some with redactions. Both parties have moved for summary judgment. For the following reasons, the Court will grant EPA's motion and deny Schaefer's cross-motion.

I. Background

Throughout 2017, Schaeffer had a series of escalating encounters with local and federal law enforcement in his home state of Oregon, involving the discharge of chemicals on Schaefer's property. Those run-ins ultimately led to an FBI search of Schaefer's home and his detonation of an improvised explosive device, which injured a federal officer. See United States v. Schaefer, 13 F.4th 875, 880-81 (9th Cir. 2021). Now incarcerated, Schaefer seeks to learn more about his criminal prosecution stemming from those 2017 events.

In April 2020, Schaefer mailed to EPA “a request under the Freedom of Information Act, and the Privacy Act,” seeking “[a]ll information about myself, Jason Paul Schaefer” and “[e]verything in or related to Federal criminal case 3:17-CR-00400-HZ,” his criminal prosecution in Oregon. Complaint (“Compl.”) Attachment 1. For purposes of identifying himself, Schaefer's FOIA request also listed his date of birth, social security number, and the fact that he had lived in Oregon from 2013 to 2020. Id. EPA did not immediately reply, so Schaefer mailed an appeal to the agency in May. Compl. ¶ 9. Hearing no response, in September 2020, Schaefer filed a complaint in this Court seeking, among other things, an order requiring EPA to disclose the records sought in his April FOIA request. Id. at 5-6. In his complaint, Schaefer asserts that, in the course of the agency's 2017 criminal investigation, EPA agents illegally invaded his property, seized chemicals he lawfully possessed, damaged his apartment, and fabricated information to support search warrants later executed by the FBI. Id. ¶¶ 11-12. Schaefer further alleged that he believes some of the records covered by his FOIA request might constitute exculpatory evidence in his criminal case. Id. ¶ 14.

After receiving word of Schaefer's lawsuit, EPA created a FOIA matter for his request and began searching for responsive records. Declaration of Claude Walker in Support of EPA's MSJ (“Walker Decl.”) ¶ 6. EPA conducted searches of several different databases and sources of potentially responsive records. First, EPA searched for information pertaining to Schaefer, including using his criminal case number, in the agency's Online Criminal Enforcement Activities Network (“OCEAN”) database, a database that contains all information regarding EPA criminal cases. Id. ¶ 7. The search of the OCEAN database identified a total of 18 responsive records, all of which EPA produced to Schaefer (half with redactions). Id. ¶ 8. EPA also contacted a special agent with the agency's Criminal Investigative Division (“CID”), in the region with jurisdiction over Schaefer's criminal case. Id. ¶ 9. After conferring with other agents involved in Schaefer's matter, the CID special agent confirmed that no responsive hardcopy or other records existed outside of the OCEAN database. Id.

Next, EPA contacted personnel in its Region 10 Superfund Program Records Center, which maintains a database containing information regarding the agency's activities relating to clean-up of environmental spills, including ones that occurred at Schaefer's Oregon addresses. Id. ¶¶ 10-13. EPA staff for that region followed their routine FOIA process for non-email records collection, notifying staff assigned to respond to the clean-up efforts involving Schaefer to submit all records for processing at the Superfund Program Records Center. Id. ¶ 12. A search of the Center's database, including the records submitted by EPA staff who dealt with Schaefer's case, yielded 10 records, all of which EPA produced (again, half with redactions). Id. ¶ 13.

Finally, EPA conducted a search in its eDiscovery database, which compiles email records. Id. ¶ 14. Searching for Schaefer's name, social security number, date of birth, known addresses, and criminal case number, the eDiscovery search unearthed 34 records, 26 of which EPA released with redactions, and 8 of which it released in full. Id. ¶ 15.

With production complete, the Court set a summary judgment briefing schedule. See Minute Order (Sept. 28, 2021). EPA filed a motion for summary judgment, and after initially failing to file a response, Schaefer filed an opposition and cross-motion. Both motions are fully briefed and ripe for decision.

II. Legal Standards

The Court may grant summary judgment if the moving party shows that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).

Summary judgment to the agency in a FOIA case is appropriate if the agency “proves that it has fully discharged its obligations under FOIA, after the underlying facts and inferences to be drawn from them are construed in the light most favorable to the FOIA requester.” Bagwell v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 311 F.Supp.3d 223, 228 (D.D.C. 2018) (Cooper, J.) (quoting Tushnet v. ICE, 246 F.Supp.3d 422, 431 (D.D.C. 2017)). FOIA cases are typically resolved on summary judgment. See Brayton v. Off. of the U.S. Trade Representative, 641 F.3d 521, 527 (D.C. Cir. 2011).

To prevail on summary judgment in a FOIA matter, the agency must first show that it conducted an adequate search for the requested records. “For a search to be adequate, an agency must show ‘beyond material doubt that its search was reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents.'” Bagwell, 311 F.Supp.3d at 228 (quoting Ancient Coin Collectors Guild v. U.S. Dep't of State, 641 F.3d 504, 514 (D.C. Cir. 2011)). That is, the issue is “whether the search was reasonably calculated to discover the requested documents, not whether it actually uncovered every document extant.” SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197, 1201 (D.C. Cir. 1991). The plaintiff's “[m]ere speculation that as yet uncovered documents may exist does not undermine the finding that the agency conducted a reasonable search for them.” Id. To show that its search was reasonable, the agency may rely on affidavits that detail “what records were searched, by whom, and through what process.” Steinberg v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 23 F.3d 548, 552 (D.C. Cir. 1994). Such affidavits are “accorded a presumption of good faith.” SafeCard, 926 F.2d at 1200.

Second, an agency must adequately justify any withholdings it makes under FOIA's exemptions from disclosure. Bagwell, 311 F.Supp.3d at 228. Because FOIA is designed to “establish a general philosophy of full agency disclosure unless information is exempted under clearly delineated statutory language,” NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 136 (1975) (citation omitted), the statute's exemptions are construed narrowly, and the agency bears the burden of justifying every withholding, Bagwell, 311 F.Supp.3d at 29.

III. Analysis

Because much of Schaefer's briefing is focused on his argument that EPA has failed to comply with the Privacy Act, the Court begins by addressing whether Schaefer has a viable claim under that statute. The Court then turns to the adequacy of EPA's search and the agency's invocation of exemptions under the FOIA framework.

A. Privacy Act

The Privacy Act “safeguards the public from unwarranted collection, maintenance, use and dissemination of personal information contained in agency records . . . by allowing an individual to participate in ensuring that his records are accurate and properly used, and by imposing responsibilities on federal agencies to maintain their records accurately.” Powell v. IRS, 255 F.Supp.3d 33, 41 (D.D.C. 2017) (quoting Mobley v. CIA, 806 F.3d 568, 585 (D.C. Cir. 2015)). Under the statute, “[e]ach agency that maintains a system of records” must provide an individual access to “his record or to any information pertaining to him which is contained in the system” upon the individual's request. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(d)(1). A “system of records” is defined as “a group of any records under the control of any agency from which information is retrieved by the name of the individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual.” Id. § 552a(a)(5). If the agency does not permit the requester to review the relevant records, he may bring a civil action against the agency in district court and “enjoin the agency from withholding the records and order the production to the complainant of any agency records improperly withheld from him.” Id. § 552a(g)(3)(A); see also id. § 552a(g)(1)(B).

To implement the statute, each agency is responsible for promulgating rules to “establish procedures” and “define reasonable times, places, and requirements for identifying an individual who requests his record or information pertaining to him before the agency shall make the record or information available to the individual.” Id. § 552a(f).

In accordance with the statute, EPA has established procedures that individuals must follow to submit a request to review records under the Privacy Act. Specifically, 40...