Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01451/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01451-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 895
Nature of Suit: Freedom of Information Act of 1974
Cause of Action: 05:0552fi Freedom of Information Act

---

- 1 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODERIC MACK WRIGHT,

Plaintiff,

vs.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

JUSTICE, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 17cv1451-LAB (MDD)

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT [Dkts. 20, 21, 

22]

In 2014 and 2015, Plaintiff Roderic Mack Wright submitted requests to each of the 

agency-defendants under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), seeking documents 

related to a federal criminal investigation into his business dealings. Wright alleges that

the defendants failed to produce responsive, nonexempt documents and thereby violated 

the FOIA. The agencies now move for summary judgment, arguing that their respective 

productions complied with FOIA rules. For the reasons below, those motions are 

GRANTED. Dkts. 20, 21, 22. 

Legal Standard

“Summary judgment is the procedural vehicle by which nearly all FOIA cases are 

resolved.” Nat'l Res. Def. Council v. Dep't of Def., 388 F. Supp.2d 1086, 1094 (C.D. Cal.

2005) (quoting Mace v. EEOC, 37 F. Supp. 2d 1144, 1146 (E.D. Miss. 1999)). “FOIA 

gives individuals a judicially-enforceable right of access to government agency 

documents.” Lion Raisins v. Dep't of Agric., 354 F.3d 1072, 1079 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing 

5 U.S.C. § 552), overruled on other grounds by Animal Legal Def. Fund v. U.S. Food & 

Case 3:17-cv-01451-LAB-MDD Document 33 Filed 04/04/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 14
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Drug Admin., 836 F.3d 987, 990 (9th Cir. 2016). The FOIA provides, among other things,

that “each agency, upon any request for records which (i) reasonably describes such 

records and (ii) is made in accordance with published rules stating the time, place, fees 

(if any), and procedures to be followed, shall make the records promptly available to any 

person.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A).

“The Supreme Court has interpreted the disclosure provisions of FOIA broadly, 

noting that the act was animated by a ‘philosophy of full agency disclosure.’” Lion Raisins,

354 F.3d at 1079 (citing John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp., 493 U.S. 146, 152 (1989)). 

“FOIA contains nine exemptions, however, which a government agency may invoke to 

protect certain documents from public disclosure.” Minier v. Cent. Intelligence Agency, 

88 F.3d 796, 800 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)). “Unlike the disclosure 

provisions of FOIA, its statutory exemptions ‘must be narrowly construed.’” Lion Raisins,

354 F.3d at 1079 (quoting John Doe Agency, 493 U.S. at 152). “Where the government 

withholds documents pursuant to one of the enumerated exemptions of FOIA, ‘the burden 

is on the agency to sustain its action.’” Id. (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B)). “An agency's 

refusal to disclose information is subject to de novo review by a district court.” Beck v. 

Dep't of Justice, 997 F.2d 1489, 1491 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (citing 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B)). In 

addition, the governmental agency has the burden of proving that it has “conducted a 

search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents.” Weisberg v. Dep't of 

Justice, 705 F.2d 1344, 1351 (D.C. Cir. 1983); see also Zemansky v. EPA, 767 F.2d 569, 

571 (9th Cir. 1985).

Department of Justice, Tax Division

1. FOIA Request and Agency Response

On July 14, 2014, Wright made a FOIA request to the Department of Justice, Tax 

Division, seeking “ALL records (Electronic, paper and other) regarding the above 

referenced individual [Roderic Mack Wright]. Including but not limited to, the investigation 

by the Northwest Florida Office, FBI Agent Jamie Van Pelt” from 2007 through the date 

of the request. Complaint, Dkt. 1, Ex. 1. After confirming Wright’s identity, the Tax 

Case 3:17-cv-01451-LAB-MDD Document 33 Filed 04/04/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 14
- 3 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Division assigned the request to two of its employees and began running searches for 

responsive documents in “TaxDoc,” a management system containing records of all 

matters received by the Division since 1978. The Division located two file numbers 

corresponding to criminal matters related to Wright: DJ Nos. 5-17-2735 and 5-17-2736. 

The agency then searched its Document Management System (“DMS”) for “Roderic Mack 

Wright,” which produced several relevant records. Banerjee Decl., Dkt. 21-2, at ¶ 21. 

Searches for “Van Pelt,” “Pelt,” and the “FBI” returned no additional documents, but a 

search for “Roderick Mack Wright” combined with the two DJ Numbers yielded one email 

not previously located. Id. at ¶ 26.

On September 25, 2015, the Tax Division sent its final response to Wright. It 

released five pages of records related to DJ No. 5-17-2736, including two routing slips, a 

Criminal Enforcement Sections Case Weighting Form, and a Criminal Enforcement 

Sections Case Post Review Analysis Form. Id. at ¶ 12. Portions of those records were 

redacted under FOIA Exemptions 5, 6, and 7. The Tax Division withheld in full three 

records totaling 35 pages under the same exemptions. Id. at ¶¶ 32-35, 36-39c, 40-44d.

The Tax Division also informed Wright that it had referred 70 additional pages of 

records originating with the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) to that agency for its 

processing and direct response. On October 16, 2015, the IRS wrote to Wright that these 

70 pages were being withheld in full because they consisted solely of documents 

generated for, and discussing detailed aspects of, a grand jury investigation. See

Valvardi Decl., Dkt. 21-3, at ¶¶ 15, 22-30. Several of the records were also, in the IRS’s

view, either exempt as privileged attorney communications or exempt as containing 

confidential taxpayer information. Id. at ¶¶ 31-36, 37-45. In total, all 70 pages were 

withheld as confidential grand jury information and 60 of the 70 pages were withheld 

under additional, applicable FOIA exemptions. 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:17-cv-01451-LAB-MDD Document 33 Filed 04/04/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 14
- 4 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1. Analysis

The Tax Division1 argues it is entitled to summary judgment because it conducted 

a reasonable search and then properly withheld documents under the relevant FOIA 

exemptions. Wright’s opposition—which contains 17 pages of mostly irrelevant 

background information copied and pasted directly from his opposition to the Department 

of Justice’s motion for summary judgment—is so sparse on rebuttal arguments that it 

should be construed as consent to the Tax Division’s motion being granted in its entirety. 

The opposition allots just three of twenty pages to discussing the Tax Division’s claimed 

exemptions, and in that three pages discusses only Exemption 6. He addresses none of 

the other exemptions claimed by the Tax Division, nor the adequacy of its search. Based 

on Wright’s failure to address the arguments presented, the Court finds that the Tax 

Division’s search was reasonable and that its application of Exemptions 3, 5, and 7 were 

proper. See Image Tech. Serv., Inc. v. Eastman Kodak, 903 F.2d 612, 615 n. 1 (9th Cir.

1990) (holding that plaintiff's failure to raise an issue in opposition to defendant's motion 

for summary judgment waived the issue); Hakakha v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 2015 WL 

4873561, at *8 (C.D. Cal. 2015) (“The Court construes Plaintiff's failure to address those 

arguments as Plaintiff's concession that they are valid reasons to dismiss those claims.”).

As discussed above, the only challenge Wright makes in his opposition is that the 

Tax Division incorrectly applied Exemption 6.2 Although his argument seems to be related 

to the DOJ’s (not the Tax Division’s) decision to apply Exemption 6 to withhold a search 

warrant that was otherwise responsive to his DOJ FOIA request, the Tax Division withheld 

the following information under Exemption 6:

/ / /

 

1 Unless otherwise specified, the Tax Division and IRS are treated as a single entity for 

purposes of this order.

2 The same documents the Tax Division withheld under Exemption 6 were also withheld 

under other FOIA exemptions, such as Exemption 7(c). Since Wright has waived any 

argument regarding exemptions other than Exemption 6, it is unnecessary to reach the 

Exemption 6 question. The Court does so only out of an abundance of caution.

Case 3:17-cv-01451-LAB-MDD Document 33 Filed 04/04/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 14
- 5 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

• The names of criminal defendants or targets (other than Wright) in a 31-

page internal Tax Division Memorandum that was sent from a trial attorney 

in the Tax Division’s Criminal Enforcement Section to the Division’s 

Principal Deputy Attorney General and set forth recommendations 

regarding whether to prosecute Wright. Banerjee Decl., Dkt. 21-1, at ¶¶ 36, 

39b-39c;

• The names of criminal defendants or targets (other than Wright) in a threepage letter from the Tax Division’s Criminal Enforcement Section to the 

Office of the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Florida 

discussing aspects of Wright’s criminal investigation. Id. at ¶¶ 40, 44a44b;

• The name of a Special Agent from a September 2, 2011 letter. Id. at ¶ 44a; 

and

• Names, email addresses, home addresses, dates of birth, and social 

security numbers of individuals referenced throughout the production. 

Valvardi Decl., Dkt. 21-3, at ¶¶ 55-58.

FOIA Exemption 6 protects “personnel and medical files and similar files the 

disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 

5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6). In determining whether Exemption 6 applies, the court considers 

two factors: (1) whether the information is contained in a personnel, medical, or “similar” 

agency file, the disclosure of which constitutes a “clearly unwarranted invasion of 

personal privacy,” and (2) whether a countervailing public interest in the record outweighs 

the individual’s privacy interest. Lahr v. Nat'l Transp. Safety Bd., 569 F.3d 964, 973 (9th 

Cir. 2009). 

Given that the individuals referenced in the Tax Division’s documents were linked 

to criminal investigations, the Tax Division properly applied Exemption 6 to withhold their 

names and personal information from its production. As the Ninth Circuit recognized in 

Lahr, “protection from such unwanted contact facilitated by disclosure of a connection

[between a private individual and] government operations and investigations is a 

cognizable privacy interest under Exemption[] 6.” Id. at 976. Further, the Tax Division’s

decision to redact names, email addresses, home addresses, dates of birth, and social 

security numbers of individuals mentioned in the documents (and especially those linked 

to a criminal investigation) is consistent with a long-recognized rule that such disclosure 

Case 3:17-cv-01451-LAB-MDD Document 33 Filed 04/04/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 14
- 6 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

would constitute a “clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” with no 

countervailing public interest. See Torres Consulting & Law Grp., LLC v. Nat'l 

Aeronautics & Space Admin., 666 F. App'x 643, 645 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[I]nformation that 

identifies a particular individual—names, addresses and social security numbers—has 

been redacted, as [Plaintiff] concedes it should be.”).

Wright makes two primary arguments in response. First, he already “knows the 

names of all the players in this story” and thus there’s no harm in disclosing their identities. 

See Opp. at 18. But fact that Wright may already know these individuals’ names is 

irrelevant—as the Tax Division correctly points out, the question is whether disclosure of 

their names and identifying information to the public would violate their privacy. It would.

Wright also makes a passing argument that these documents should be produced even 

if the identifying information is redacted. See Opp. at 17. As discussed, though, these 

documents were withheld under multiple exemptions and Wright has not addressed any 

exemption other than Exemption 6 in his opposition. Even if production with redactions 

would be appropriate under Exemption 6, the documents were properly withheld in full 

under other exemptions, so this argument is unavailing.

In sum, there was no error in the Tax Division’s decision to withhold private 

information under Exemption 6. Wright has not addressed the Tax Division’s application 

of the other exemptions nor the reasonableness of its search, so these arguments are 

waived. The Tax Division’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Dkt. 21.

Department of Justice3

1. FOIA Request and Agency Response

On March 3, 2015, Wright submitted a FOIA request to the FBI requesting “all 

documents regarding the above referenced matter,” referring to court case USA v. 

 

3 The DOJ moves for summary judgment on behalf of the four separate agencies: (1) the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), (2) the Executive Office for the United States 

Attorneys (“EOUSA”), (3) the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Florida, and (4) 

Department of Justice, Office of Information Police (“OIP”). The OIP is not a defendant 

in this suit and Wright does not appear to challenge its actions.

Case 3:17-cv-01451-LAB-MDD Document 33 Filed 04/04/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 14
- 7 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Roderick Mack Wright and USAO Number 2009R00343. See Hardy Decl., Dkt. 20-8 at 

¶¶ 5-6. The agency responded that it had located approximately 3,506 pages of records 

and one compact disc potentially responsive to his request. To expedite the process, the 

FBI and Wright agreed that his request would be limited “to the first 16 pages of the search 

warrant affidavit and third-party depositions, with the understanding that all material 

undergoes FOIA review and exempt material would be withheld.” Id., Ex. E. In total, this 

reduced the universe of potentially responsive documents from 3,506 to roughly 50. Id. 

After consulting with another government agency, the FBI released one document to 

Wright on February 26, 2016 that related to a bankruptcy proceeding from the Northern 

District of Florida. See id. at ¶ 14. The FBI supplemented that production on November 

30, 2017, releasing seven additional pages containing emails between the U.S. Attorney’s 

Office, Northern District of Florida and the FBI, as well as a memorandum regarding 

potential mortgage fraud by Wright and Pointe Development of Destin, Inc. The 

remaining responsive documents were withheld as exempt. See id. at ¶ 16.

On the same date Wright submitted his FOIA request to the FBI, he submitted an 

identical request to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Florida, which was 

referred to the EOUSA for processing. See Kornmeier Decl., Dkt. 20-2, Ex. A. The 

EOUSA responded that it had located 122 pages of responsive material, but that these 

documents were being withheld in full as related to grand jury proceedings. See Compl. 

Dkt. 1, Ex. 30. The EOUSA also located several additional documents that originated 

with different agencies and referred those documents to their respective agencies for 

processing. See Kornmeier Decl. at ¶¶ 8-9. Finally, on October 11, 2017, the EOUSA 

sent Wright a letter explaining that it was withholding another seven pages of grand jury 

materials that had been located at the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Florida. 

Id. at ¶ 7. 

The searches performed by the FBI and EOUSA were substantially similar to those 

performed by the Tax Division, discussed above. Upon receipt of his request, the DOJ 

conducted an index search of its Central Records System using the following search 

Case 3:17-cv-01451-LAB-MDD Document 33 Filed 04/04/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 14
- 8 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

terms, including phonetic breakdowns of each: “Roderic Mack Wright,” “Roderic M 

Wright,” and “Roderic Wright.” See Hardy Decl., Dkt. 20-8, at ¶ 24. These searches 

encompassed records maintained at FBI headquarters as well as all FBI field offices. Id. 

The agency used information in Wright’s request letter, such as his date of birth and other 

identifying information, to help locate responsive documents. Id. As a result, the FBI 

located one responsive main file that was indexed under Wright’s name; within this file 

were records specifically requested by his negotiated request. Id.

2. Analysis

The DOJ argues it is entitled to summary judgment because it conducted a 

reasonable search and then properly withheld documents under the relevant FOIA 

exemptions. Like his response to the Tax Division’s motion, Wright does not make a 

meaningful effort to oppose the DOJ’s motion. The first 17 pages of his 21-page 

opposition are identical to those submitted in response to the Tax Division’s motion—the 

pages are filled with irrelevant background information that has little to no bearing on the 

matters currently before the Court. With limited exception (discussed below), he does not 

engage with the DOJ’s claimed exemptions nor explain why these exemptions were 

incorrectly applied to the specific documents at issue. Instead, he makes a handful of 

scattershot arguments and combines those arguments with generic statements of law 

concerning FOIA’s goal of furthering public disclosure. Rather than belabor the point by 

marching through the documents withheld and the propriety of the exemptions applied to 

each, the Court will instead address the few responsive arguments Wright makes. As 

with the Tax Division, all other arguments are deemed waived.4 See U.S. v. Dunkel, 927 

F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir. 1991) (“Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in the 

briefs”); Keenan v. Allan, 91 F.3d 1275, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996) (“It is not [the] task . . . of the 

 

4 The lackluster nature of Plaintiff’s oppositions is especially disheartening in light of the 

amount of time the Court gave him to prepare his responses. Wright had more than three 

months to put together oppositions to the defendants’ motions, including an extension of 

time granted specifically so he would have adequate time to prepare.

Case 3:17-cv-01451-LAB-MDD Document 33 Filed 04/04/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 14
- 9 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

district court[] to scour the record in search of a genuine issue of triable fact. We rely on 

the nonmoving party to identify with reasonable particularity the evidence that precludes 

summary judgment.”). 

Wright first argues that the DOJ failed to submit a “Vaughn index,” which is a list

of documents withheld and the reasons for doing so. See Opp. at 22. He’s incorrect. 

Both the FBI and EOUSA submitted Vaughn indexes. See Hardy Decl., 20-8, Ex. L; 

Kornmeier Decl., Dkt. 20-2, Ex. E. These indexes contain sufficient descriptions of the 

documents withheld and the specific exemptions applied to each. Accordingly, even if 

the Court were to construe Wright’s argument as an attack on the sufficiency (rather than 

existence) of the agencies’ indexes, his argument fails. See Landmark Legal Found. v. 

I.R.S., 267 F.3d 1132, 1138 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (“[A] Vaughn index is not a work of literature; 

agencies are not graded on the richness or evocativeness of their vocabularies. The index 

offers individualized descriptions of the documents themselves and then, typically . . . 

tracks that of the statute itself. It is not the agency's fault that thousands of documents 

belonged in the same category, thus leading to exhaustive repetition.”).

He next argues that the FBI’s search was inadequate because it failed to use the 

name “Rod Wright”—a nickname used by his associates—in searching for responsive 

records. The FBI, of course, would have no way of knowing it should use that moniker 

since it was not a name listed on Wright’s FOIA request. The FBI searched for three 

separate variations of the name “Roderic Mack Wright,” including phonetic variations of 

each. Its efforts were more than sufficient to constitute a good-faith search.

The bulk of Wright’s objections relate to the FBI’s decision to exempt as grand jury 

materials certain documents Wright says should have been disclosed. First, he says that 

search warrant affidavits should have been disclosed because they were completed 

before the grand jury was seated and thus could not be grand jury materials. Documents 

related to grand jury investigations enjoy broad protection from public disclosure. See 

Iglesias v. Cent. Intelligence Agency, 525 F. Supp. 547, 556 (D.D.C. 1981) (“Rule 6(e) 

embodies a broad sweeping policy of preserving the secrecy of grand jury material 

Case 3:17-cv-01451-LAB-MDD Document 33 Filed 04/04/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 14
- 10 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

regardless of the substance in which such material is contained.”). This protection does 

not begin the moment the grand jury is seated—it also extends to documents that predate 

the investigation whose disclosure would “tend to show the substance of testimony or the 

direction and strategy of the investigation.” Greenberg v. U.S. Dep't of Treasury, 10 

F. Supp. 2d 3, 28 (D.D.C. 1998) (citations and quotation marks omitted). The search 

warrant affidavits here, which were created by an IRS Special Agent in advance of the 

grand jury proceedings, are indicative of the “direction and strategy of the investigation” 

because they show who and/or what was being searched. Such materials were properly 

withheld under Exemption 3. 

Wright also argues that some of the grand jury designations were applied after he 

filed his FOIA request. See Opp. at 16. Of course they were. While it’s conceivable that 

some document designations are made on a rolling basis, many document designations 

are not made until a member of the public submits a request for production that requires

the agency to consider whether a specific document should be released to the public. 

That a designation is made after a FOIA request is irrelevant to whether the document is

exempt or not. 

Wright emphasizes how few documents the DOJ ultimately produced relative to 

the number initially identified as responsive. But the fact that the DOJ’s final production 

was small is not surprising. Wright’s requests centered on a criminal investigation into 

his own business dealings, and documents related to criminal investigations are among 

the most protected government documents. Indeed, at least four of the nine FOIA 

exemptions can be construed as touching on criminal investigations in some way. See 5 

U.S.C. § 552(b)(3) (exempting documents protected by other statute, including Fed. R. 

Crim. Pro 6(e), which relates to grand jury documents); Id. § 552(b)(5) (exempting intraand inter-agency memoranda, including investigatory documents); Id. § 552(b)(6) 

(exempting the disclosure of documents, such as witness or agent names, that would 

“constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy”); Id. § 552(b)(7) 

(exempting “records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes.”). So while 

Case 3:17-cv-01451-LAB-MDD Document 33 Filed 04/04/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of

 14
- 11 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Wright makes much of the fact that he received only a few pages from the DOJ, this 

outcome is not unusual in light of the type of material he sought.

At the very end of his opposition, Wright reveals the underlying objective of this

FOIA proceeding: an order allowing “Wright to depose[] Patrick Barcus, Blair Mielke, and 

William Amos to prove conclusively that the FBI interfered with Wright’s business 

dealings.” Opp. at 22. This type of request is entirely beyond the scope of this FOIA 

proceeding. See Wheeler v. C.I.A., 271 F. Supp. 2d 132, 139 (D.D.C. 2003) (“Discovery 

is generally unavailable in FOIA actions.”); In re Steele, 799 F.2d 461, 466 (9th Cir. 1986)

(“The FOIA is not to be used as a substitute for the traditional means of discovery 

available to a litigant.”). The point of this case is to determine whether the various 

agencies properly withheld documents under the relevant FOIA exceptions, not to provide 

the best ammunition to Wright in his efforts to show that the government interfered in his 

business dealings. Although Wright’s confusion helps to explain why his oppositions 

focus on the irrelevant details of the government’s criminal investigations, it does not 

warrant denying summary judgment. His request for discovery is DENIED and the DOJ’s 

Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Dkt. 20.

Department of the Treasury

1. FOIA Request and Agency Response

On July 13, 2014, Wright submitted a FOIA request to the Department of the 

Treasury through its online “goFOIA” web portal. See Law Decl., Dkt. 22-3, Ex. A. His 

request sought “ALL records (Electronic, paper and other) pertaining to the Investigation 

of Roderic Mack Wright (The above named Requester) by the Pensacola Division, 

Department or Office. In particular the investigation conducted by Treasury Agents 

Margaret Weiss and Phillip Dreason.” Id. After confirming receipt of his request, the 

Treasury informed Wright via letter that “his request failed to describe the requested 

records in reasonably sufficient detail to enable Treasury employees who are familiar with 

the subject area of the request to locate the records without placing an unreasonable 

burden upon the Department.” Law Decl. at ¶ 9. The Treasury requested that he 

Case 3:17-cv-01451-LAB-MDD Document 33 Filed 04/04/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 11 of

 14
- 12 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

resubmit his request with a reasonable description of the specific records sought. It also 

provided him a link to a list of specific Treasury records systems to help Wright in 

reformulating his request. Id. The Treasury contends that Wright did not respond. 

Instead, seven months later, on March 3, 2015, Wright provided the Treasury with copies 

of correspondence related to his FOIA requests to other government agencies. This 

correspondence included a “USAO Number” related to the investigation but did not 

provide additional information about the types of records sought from the agency. The 

Treasury again informed him that his FOIA request was still too vague and that the agency

required additional information to facilitate a reasonable search. The Treasury contends 

that Wright again failed to respond, and it then administratively closed his request under 

31 C.F.R. 1.5(a)(1), which provides that “[i]f a requester does not respond within 30 days 

to a communication from a bureau to amend the request in order for it to be in 

conformance with this subpart, the request file will be considered closed.” 

For his part, Wright initially alleged in his Complaint that he did respond to the 

Treasury’s requests for clarification, first on August 5, 2014 and later on April 21, 2015. 

Compl., Dkt. 1., at ¶¶ 11, 22. The Treasury has no record of ever receiving these letters, 

though, and Wright concedes in his opposition that he may have mistakenly provided 

information to the DOJ Tax Division that was intended for the Treasury. See Opposition, 

Dkt. 28-2, at 5. 

2. Analysis

An agency’s obligations under FOIA to search for and release records “are not 

triggered . . . until it has received a proper FOIA request in compliance with [the agency’s] 

published regulations.” Antonelli v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 591 F. Supp. 2d 15, 26

(D.D.C. 2008). A proper, perfected FOIA request is one that “reasonably describes” the 

records sought, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A), and a party’s failure to perfect a request 

constitutes failure to exhaust administrative remedies, which precludes judicial review. 

Flowers v. IRS, 307 F. Supp. 2d 60, 66 (D.D.C. 2004). The question here is whether 

Case 3:17-cv-01451-LAB-MDD Document 33 Filed 04/04/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 12 of

 14
- 13 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Wright’s request to the Treasury “reasonably describe[d]” the documents sought, such 

that the agency had a duty to search for and produce responsive documents. 

FOIA processing within the Treasury is decentralized—each of the agency’s nine 

divisions (for example, the IRS and the Bureau of Engraving and Printing) process their 

own FOIA requests. Law Decl. at ¶ 5(a)-(i). Requests directed at the Treasury in general

are treated as requests to the Treasury’s headquarter offices, such as the Office of the 

Secretary. Id. at ¶ 1, n.1. In light of this, the Treasury argues that Wright’s request for 

“all documents pertaining to” an investigation by a separate agency (or a separate division 

of the Treasury) is not a reasonable description of the documents sought. 

“Broad, sweeping requests lacking specificity are not permissible,” nor are 

requests that would require the agency to “engage in quite a bit of guesswork to execute.” 

Yagman v. Pompeo, 868 F.3d 1075, 1081 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing Marks v. United States, 

578 F.2d 261, 263 (9th Cir. 1978)). Whether Wright’s request here was impermissibly 

broad would normally be a close call. On one hand, “all records . . . pertaining to [an 

investigation]” is more or less the definition of a broad, sweeping request. On the other 

hand, Wright specifically named the individuals and office involved in that investigation, 

which would cut down considerably on the guesswork required. What tips the scales in 

favor of the Treasury is that Wright did not respond when asked for clarifying information. 

Although the Treasury may have been able to search for documents based on the 

information provided (or at least referred the request to the relevant division), it chose 

instead to request supplemental information so that it could be sure it was providing 

responsive information. That decision was not improper. The agency invited Wright on 

July 13, 2014 to refine his request and suggested that he could identify specific records 

systems (from a list provided) that might contain the documents he sought. Wright’s only 

confirmed response to the Treasury came on March 3, 2015, when he resubmitted the 

same basic request, but this time added the “USAO Number” of the investigation. Given 

that this USAO Number was a number assigned by a separate agency (the DOJ), this 

additional information did not clarify the FOIA request such that the Treasury had a duty 

Case 3:17-cv-01451-LAB-MDD Document 33 Filed 04/04/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 13 of

 14
- 14 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

to respond. See Yagman, 868 F.3d at 1081 (FOIA obligations are triggered “only upon a 

request which ‘reasonably describes’ the records sought.”) (citing Marks, 578 F.2d at 

263). When the Treasury again reached out to him for clarification, Wright again failed to 

respond.5 Given the opportunities given to Wright to clarify his broad request and his 

failure to do so, the Treasury did not have an obligation to respond under the FOIA. The 

Treasury’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Dkt. 22. 

Conclusion

The agency-defendants’ motions for summary judgment are GRANTED. Dkts. 

20, 21, 22. The clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 4, 2019

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

Chief United States District Judge

 

5 Again, Wright has made inconsistent claims that he did respond to these requests for 

clarification. The declaration provided in support of the Treasury’s motion, however, 

describes the agency’s correspondence tracking system and confirms that the agency 

did not receive any subsequent clarification from Wright as to his FOIA request, except 

the March 3, 2015 letter discussed above. See Law Decl. at ¶ 13. Wright admits in his 

opposition that some information intended for the Treasury may have been mistakenly 

provided to the DOJ instead. See Opp. at 5. Absent a triable issue of fact here, summary 

judgment is warranted.

Case 3:17-cv-01451-LAB-MDD Document 33 Filed 04/04/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 14 of

 14