M I CHAE L S US S M AN, P la in ti ff , v . UN I TED S TATES M AR SHAL S S ERVI CE, D ef en d an t. UNI TED S TATES DI S TRI CT COURT

FO R T H E D IST R IC T O F C O L U M B IA

Ci vi l Ac t i on No . 03 - 61 0 ( HHK)

M EM ORANDUM ORDER I n this cas e, M ich ael S u ssm an p roc eed ing p ro se , all eges th at th e U n it ed States M arsh als Se rvi c e ( “ M a r s ha l s Se rvi c e ” ) vi ol a t e d b oth the Pr i va c yAc t , 5 U. S. C. § 522a , a nd the Fr e e dom of I nf ormat i on Act( “ FOI A”) , 5 U. S. C. § 522. T hi s Courtg r a nt e d s ummaryj udg men ti n f a vorof the M a r s ha l s Se rvi c e , a nd Sus s man appe a l e d. T he Uni t e d S t a t e s Courtof Appe a l s f

orthe Di s tr i c tof C olum bia Cir cuitaf

f i rm ed p artof

this Co urt ’ s deci si on , and vacat ed an d reman ded the re m ai nd er f o r f u rth e r p ro c e e d in gs. S e e Su s s m a n v. U n ite dS ta te s M

a rs h a ls Se r v ic e , 494 F. 3d 1106 , 11 24 ( D . C . C i r . 20 07 ) . Si nce the C i r cuitC ou rtr end er ed it s op i nion , the M ar shals Service has r el eased ad d it ion al do cu m en ts t o Su ssm an , an d b o th p arti es h av e ch an ged their po siti o n s w ith r esp ect to exem pti on s cl ai m ed an d d i spu t ed p r i or t o the C i r cuitC ou rt ’ s deci si on . Thu s, som e disputes that p red ate the C ir cu itC o u rt ’s op inio n h av e b een r eso lve d , o the rs ha v e n o t, an d n ew o n es are pr e s e nt e d t o thi s Courtf orthe f i r s tt i me. Now be f

or e the Courti s the M a r s ha l s Se rvi c e ’ s mot i on f or sum m aryj ud g m ent and S ussm an’s mo t i on f or part i al sum m aryj ud g m ent and li m i t ed discov ery . Becau se nei t her part yhas est abli shed an absen ce of a g enu i ne iss ue o f

m at er i al f

actI f at th is j u n ctu re, o r at an yti m e, the p arti es w ish to m ed iate th eir d isp u te eith er w ith 1 the a s s i s t a nc e of

a ma g i s t r a t e j udg e orthe Court ’ s Al t e rna t i ve Di s put e Re s ol ut i on pr og r a m, the p a rtie s are en c o u ra ged to so n o tif yth e C o u rt. 

### -2- a nd tha ti ti s e nt i t l e d t o j udg men ta s a ma t t e rof l a w, the s ummaryj udg men tmot i ons s ubmi t t e d b y b o th p arti es w il l be d en ied w ith o u t preju d ice. B eca u se d isco v eryis no t w arran ted at th is p o int, S u s s m a n ’s m o tio n f

o r lim ite d d is c o v e ryw ill als o b e d e n ie d w ith o u t p re ju d ic e . I . F OI A E XE M P T I ONS The pa rt i e s c ont i nue t o d i s put e a tl e a s ts ome of the FOI A e xe mpt i ons c l a i med bythe def end ant. The r ecord sub m i t t ed d oes n ot perm i tthe C ou rtt o d et erm i ne ex act l yw hich e xe mpt i ons a s t o whi c h r e da c t e d p ort i ons of whi c h d oc ume nt s Su s s man c ha l l e ng e s . T he i nf orm at i on sub m i t t ed b ythe M ar shals Service i n it s Vau ghn ind ex , togeth er w ith it s d eclaratio n s, is i n su f

f icien t t o su p p o rta d eterm ina ti o n that the M arsh als S erv ice h as ju stif ied it s n o n d is c lo s u re d e c is io n s . T h eref o re, the C o u rtw il l r eq u ir e the p arti es to su b m ita r eco rd th at w il l af f o rd th e C o u rta b a s is u p o n w h ic h to res o lv e th e p a rtie s ’ d is p u te s . S e e V o in c h e v. F.B .I., 412 F. Su pp. 2d 60 , 65 ( D. D. C. 20 06) ( s t a t i ng tha ta c ourtma yr e qui r e a mor e de t a i l e d Vau ghn i nde x i f the on e su b m itted is no t detailed en o u gh to all o w a co u rtto d eterm ine w h eth er FO I A ex em p ti o n s w ere legi ti m atelyclaim ed ). Th e p arti es sh all m eet an d co n f er, r ep eated lyif

n ece ssa ry , in o rde r to na rr ow the i rdi s put e s a nd pr e pa r e a c l e a rr e c or d f orthe Court . Ata mi ni mum, Su s s man wi l l be

1 req u ir ed to p reciselyiden ti f yf o r the M arsh als S erv ice eac h d isp u ted r ed actio n , an d the M arsh als S erv ice w il l be req u ir ed to p rep are a su b m issio n that: ( 1) addresses on l

y the n o n d isclo su res tha t r em ain in d isp u te;Descri bing w i t hh el d inf orm at i on as “i nternal i nf orm at i on ” Vau ghn i nde x, Aug . 29 , 2 2008 , [ f i l e d a tdo c ke te ntry75 ] a t4, 5, 6, ora s “ pr e domi na nt l yi nt e rna l a nd whi c h, i f r e l e a s e d, w o u ld risk cir cu m v en ti o n o f the law , ” M em . in S u p p . o f D ef . ’s M o t. f

o r S u m m . J . , Su p p l. D ecl ar at i on of

W i l l i am E. B ordley , O ct . 24 , 20 08 , ¶ 10, i s no tadeq uate a s a no nco ncluso ry description tha t

exp lains th e ap p lic a tio n o f F O I A ex e m p tio n (b )(2 ). 

### -3- (2) is acco m p an ied b yco p ies o f all the p ages th at ha v e b een r eleas ed to S u ssm an w ith di s put e d p a rt i a l no ndi s c l os ur e s , s o a s t o s how the l oc a t i on a nd e xt e ntof e a c h r e da c t i on an d the p reciselyco rr elated ex em p ti o n (s) ass erted f o r eac h r ed actio n ( the se p ages sh o u ld b e a r u n iq u e id e n tif

ie rs f o r ea s e o f

refere n c e b yth e p a rtie s an d th e C o u rt, e.g., p a ge n u m b ers o r B ates-stam p s ap p li ed f o r this p u rpo se); ( 3) i nclud es a sw orn st at em ent that, byr ef er ence t o the un i qu e pag e i den t i f i er , prov i des f ore a c h r e da c t i on on e a c h p a g e a no nc onc l us oryde s c r i pt i on of the r e da c t e d i nf

ormat i on 2 that explai ns h ow the assert ed ex em pti on app l i es. Se e i d. Th e p arti es sh all co n f er an d join tl yp rop o se a d ate b yw h ich this n ew r eco rd f o r the C o u rt w ill b e su b m itte d . I I . P R I V A C Y A C T C L A I MS S u s s m a n as s e rts th re e P riv a c yA c t cla im s : a f a ilu re to p ro v id e h im ac c e s s to h is rec o rd s , a f ailure to co m p lyw ith the n o n d isclo su re pro v ision s, an d a f ailure to acco u n t f

o r alleg ed ly im p ro p e r d is c lo s u re s o f h is rec o rd s . See 5 U . S.C. § 5 52 ( a) ( d)( 1) ( g ov erning access of subj ect r e c or ds ) ; § 552a ( b) ( g ove rni ng no ndi s c l os ur e of s ubj e c ti nf

ormat i on) ; § 552a ( c ) ( g ove rni ng a c c ount i ng of

di s c l os ur e s of

s ubj e c tr e c or ds ) . Al l the s e c l a i ms de pe nd i n the f i r s ti ns t a nc e on a de t e rmi na t i on of

wha ti nf ormat i on t he M a r s ha l s Se rvi c e ha s on Su s s man tha ti s s ubj e c tt o the access, no nd i scl osu r e, and accoun t i ng prov i si on s of the P r i vacyA ct , a dispu t ed iss ue.

### -4-

T h is C ir cu ith as d eterm ine d that the Priv acyA ct pro v ision s im p li cated in th is case ap p ly on l yt o rec ords m ai ntai ned i n a “sy st em of r ecords, ” and that a “sy st em of r ecords” f

or these purpos e s i s on e i n whi c h i nf ormat i on a bouti ndi vi dua l s i s , i n a c tua l pr a c t i c e , r e tr i e ve d b ythe in d iv id u a l’s n a m e . S e e H e n ke v. U

.S . D e p ’t o f C o m m e r c e , 8 3 F.3 d 1 4 5 3 , 1 4 5 9 -61 ( D . C . C ir . 1 9 9 6 ); a c c o r dKr ieg e rv. U .S . D e p ’t o f Ju s tic e , 5 2 9 F . S u p p . 2 d 2 9 , 4 1 -4 2 (D .D .C . 2 0 0 8 ). T h is is n o t to su gges t th a t an age n c ym a ysim p lyrefu s e to ac k n o w le d ge tha ti tma i nt a i ns a s y s t e m of r e c or ds a nd the r e byi ns ul a t e i t s e l f f r om the r e a c h o f the P r i vacyA ct . To the con t r ary , i f there i s evidence that an ag encyi n p r act i ce r etr i eves i nf

orm at i on abo ut i nd i vidu al s byr ef er ence t o thei rnam es, the m er e f act tha tthe a g e nc yha s no ta c knowl e dg e d tha ti top e r a t e s a s y s t e m of r e c or ds wi l l no t p rotec t i t f

rom the s tatuto ryco n seq u en ces o f it s actio n s. O n the o the r h an d , there i s no m ag i c nu m ber of

i nciden t al or ad h oc re tr i evals byr ef er ence t o an i ndi vi dua l ' s na me whi c h wi l l tr a ns f orm a g r oup of

r e c or ds i nt o as y s t e m of r e c or ds k e y e d to in d iv id u a ls . One f a c t ori n d e c i di ng whe the rs uc h as y s t e m e xi s t s , ob vi ous l y , i s the p u rp o s e f

o r w h ic h th e in f

o rm a tio n o n in d iv id u a ls is b e in g g a th e re d . . . . T h u s , . . . whe r e i nf

ormat i on a bouti ndi vi dua l s i s on l ybe i ng g a the r e d a s a n a dmi ni s tr a t i ve a dj unc tt o ag r a nt - mak i ng pr og r a m whi c h f oc us e s on bu s i ne s s e s a nd whe r e the a g e nc yha s pr e s e nt e d e vi de nc e tha ti tha s no pr a c t i c e of r e tr i e vi ng i nf

ormat i on ke y e d t o i ndi vi dua l s , the a g e nc ys houl d n otbe vi e wed a s ma i nt a i ni ng a s y s t e m of r e c or ds . On t he othe rha nd, whe r e a n a g e nc y— s uc h a s the FBI

— i s c ompi l i ng i nf orm at i on abo ut i nd i vidu al s pri m ar i l yf or i nv est i g at orypu rpo ses, Pri vacyA ct c onc e rns a r e a tthe i rz e ni t h, a nd i f the r e i s e vi de nc e of

e ve n af e w r e tr i e va l s of inform ation k ey ed to in d ivid u als’ na m es, i t m ayw ell b e the case that the agen cyis m ai ntai ning a sy st em of r ecords. W e ho l d ther ef ore that i n d et erm i ning w hether an agen cym ain tains a sy stem o f r eco rds k ey ed to in d ivid u als, the co u rtsh o u ld vi e w t he e nt i r e t yof

the s i tua t i on, i nc l udi ng the a g e nc y ’ s f unc t i on, the pu rpos e f

or whi c h the i nf

ormat i on was g a t he r e d, a nd the a g e nc y ’ s a c tua l r e tr i e va l pr a c t i c e a nd po l i ci es. H e n ke , 83 F. 3d at14 61 . Given the f un ct i on of

the M ar shals Service , Pri vacyA ctcon cerns are at the irzen ith . W h eth er Su ssm an ’s r eco rds are pa rto f a “sy stem o f

r eco rds ” d ep en d s in lar ge pa rt on the p urpo se f

or w hich t he inf

orm at i on w as g athered and the M ar shals Service ’ s actual r etr i eval pr act i ce and p oli ci es.Itdo e s no the l p ma t t e r s tha tthe r e c or d i s c onf us e d b ydi s c r e pa nc i e s be twee n wha tthe 3 M a r s ha l s Se rvi c e ’ s de c l a r a t i ons appe a rt o s t a t e a nd wha ti t s c ouns e l r e pr e s e nt s a s f a c t . F or 

### -5- Th e M ar shals Service ’ s decl ar at i on s i n this case do no tdiscl ose it s actual r etr i eval p ra c tic e an d p o lic ie s . See M em . i n S up po rtof D ef . ’ s M ot. f

or Sum m . J. , Su pp l . D ecl . of W i l l i am E. Bor dl e y , Oc t . 24 , 20 08 ( “ Bor dl e yDe c l . ” ) ; Re pl yi n S upp. of De f . ’ s M ot . f

orSu mm. J. , Se c ond Su pp l . D ecl . of

W i l l i am E. B ordley , D ec. 12 , 20 08 . The M ar shals Service st at es that i tcon du ct ed “a se ar ch f

or r ecords pert ai ning t o” S ussm an at several of i t s distr i ctof

f i ces, and that i tl ocated reco rds o n Su ssm an in its of f ice in th e W estern D istr ict o f Pe n n sy lva n ia an d in its he ad q u arters f o r the In v estig ative Se rvice s an d J u d icial S ecu ri tyD ivisio n s. B o rdleyD ecl. ¶ 1 9 . Th e M arsh als Service do es no tdiscl ose the metho d b yw hich t hese r ecords w er e r etr i eved or i t s usu al prac t i ce o f r etri ev ing su ch r eco rds . It cl aim s, h o w ev er, that “[t] h e I C /TI S [ I n ap p rop ri ate C om m un i cat i on s/ Th r eatInv est i g at i on Sy st em ] i s the on l y P ri v acyA ct sy stem o f r eco rds w h erein r ecords i nd exed t o [Sussm an’s] nam e and / or per son al i den t i f i erar e maintai ned , ” id . (em p h asis a d d e d ) , a n d th a ti t“ l o c a t e d n o a c c o u n t i n g s fo rd i s c l o s u r e s fo r[ S u s s m a n ’ s ] r e c o r d s i n th e I C / T IS sy st em , ” and that there i s no evidence of i m prop erdiscl osu r es f r om Su ssm an’s r ecords i n that s y s te m o f

rec o rd s , id . ¶ 20 . These assert i on s r eston a presum pti on t o w hich t he M ar shals Service i s no te nt i t l e d o n thi s r e c or d: tha tthe othe rr e c or ds s e a r c he d a r e no ta “ s y s t e m of r e c or ds ” f

or Pri vacyA ctpu rpo ses. B eca u se th e M arsh als S erv ice’s d eclaratio n s d o n o t estab li sh a r eco rd th at su f f icien tl y exp l ai ns the pu rpo se f

or w hich al l of

the inf orm at i on on Su ssm an w as g athered, or i t s actual r e tr i e va l pr a c t i c e a nd pol i c i e s f orthe i nf ormat i on mai nt a i ne d i n v a r i ous l oc a t i ons on Su s s man , the M ar shals Service has no test abli shed that tho se r ecords ar e no tpartof a “sy st em of

r ecords” abo ut Sussm an an d su bjectt o the Pri vacyA ctprov i si on s g i ving r i se t o the cl ai m s i n this case . 3e x a m p l e , th e s w o rn d e c l a r a t i o n s t a t e s th a ta d o c u m e n tw a s r e l e a s e d “ s h o w i n g th e d a t e th e U S MS

cl osed i t s on l yi nv est i g at i ve f i l e i nd exed t o p l ai nti f

f’ s nam e. ” B ordleyD ecl . ¶ 8. Yet, cou nsel assert s that “[ h] er e, the ev i den ce i s un dispu t ed thatthe U SM S co nd ucted, and then cl osed , an i nv est i g at i on i nto K ei t h M ay dak , i nclud i ng f or threat ening a f

ederal j ud g e, bu tthat US M S n ever i nv est i g at ed P l ai nti f

f himself . ” D ef . ’ s R eplyi n S up p. of

i t s M ot. f

or Sum m . J. at2, ¶ 1. The l aw is clear th at i n su ch situ ation s th e d eclaratio n co n tr o ls, b u t su ch ap p aren t con tr ad icti o n s in v it e c o n c e rn as to th e ac c u ra c yan d /o r cla rityo f th e sw o rn sta te m e n ts . 

### -6- W i thoutr e s ol vi ng tha ti s s ue i n the f i r s ti ns t a nc e , the r e c a n b e no s ummaryj udg men ton the P riv a c yA c t cla im s . CONCLUSI ON AND ORDER B ecause the re cord f

act s do no tw arr ant an aw ar d o f sum m aryj ud g m ent f

or ei ther partyas t o a n y o f th e is s u e s re m a i n i n g i n d i s p u t e , i tis h e r e b y ORDERED that S u ssm an sh all ide n ti f yw ith p recisio n , an d co n v eyto th e M arsh als Service , each do cum ent orr edacti on i n sam e that r em ai ns in dispu t e; i ti s f urther ORDERED tha t th e M arsh als S erv ice sh all p rep are an d su b m ita r eco rd su ch as is descri bed i n su bp artA of this mem orand um order ; i ti s f urther ORDERED that the p art i es shal l , on or bef ore Octob er8, 20 09 , f

i l e a j ointl yprop osed date f or the su bm i ssi on of

such r ecord; and i ti s f

urther ORDERED tha tthe M a r s ha l s Se rvi c e s ha l l , on orbe f or e Oc t obe r8, 20 09, a dvi s e the C ou rtas t o w hether i ti ntend s t o att em pt ag ai n to est abli sh a r ecord capab l e of sup po rt i ng an aw ar d o f sum m aryj ud g m ent on the Pri vacyA ctcl ai m s, and i f so, prop ose a date byw hich t hat re c o rd w ill b e su b m itte d . HE NRY H. KE NNE DY, J R. D a te : S e p te m b e r 2 5 , 2 0 0 9 U n ite d S ta te s D is tric t J u d ge