UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA MI CHAEL

PENNY, : : Plaintiff, : Civil Action No.: 08-1467 (RMU)

: v. : Re Docume nt No.: 15 : U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTI CE, : : De fe nd ant. :

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION G R A N TI N G TH E D E F E NDANT ’ S M OT I ON F OR S UM M ARY J UDGMENT

I. IN TR OD UC TIO N In th is c ivi l a c tio n b ro ught pro s eunder the Fr eedom of Information Ac t (“F OIA”) , 5 U. S.C. § 5 52 , th e pla int if f c ha lle ng e s th e F B I ’s re sp on se s to his re qu e sts fo r r e c or ds pe rt a ini ngto himself, other individuals and re al prope rty . The de fenda nt moves for summary

judgme nt purs ua nt t o Ru le 56 of

the F e de ra l Ru le s o f C ivi l Pr oc e dure . Upo n c on sid e ratio n o f t he pa rt ie s’ submissi ons and the e ntire re cord, the court grants the de fenda nt’s motion.

II. BACKG ROUND In Se pte mbe r 2 00 6, the pla int if f r e qu e ste d f

ro m F B IHe a dq

ua rt e rs re c or ds pe rt a ini ngto him se lf , a n in div idu a l na

me d T ammi e B ro wn

and c e rt a in p ro pe rt

y loc ate d at 49 01 Wes t Congr ess, Chicag o, I llinois . Def .’s Mot., Dec l. of David M. Ha rdy (“H ardy Dec l.”) ¶ 7 & Ex . A. By letter dated Fe bruar

y 26, 2007, the FB Iinformed the pla intiff that an automate d sear ch of the F B IHe a dq

ua rt e rs ’ c e ntr a l r e c or ds sy ste m lo c ate d n o r e sp on siv e re c or ds and a dv ise d h im o f h is rig ht to appeal to the Of

fice of Information and Priva cy (“O I P”). Id ., Ex . E. In response to the2

plaintiff’s administrative a ppeal, the O I P, by

letter dated J une 28, 2007, af firmed the He a dq ua rt e rs ’ d e te rm inatio n b ut a lso inf or me d th e pla int if

f t hat he c ou ld s e nd

a F OIA r e qu e st direc tly to the FB Ifield off

ice that he believed ma

y have r esponsive re cords. Id
. , E x . H
. It further advised the pla intiff that absent B rown’s “ consent, proof of death, official acknow ledg ment of an inve stigation, or an over ridingpublic interest, conf irming or denying the
e xiste nc e of

law e nf or c e me nt r e c or ds c on c e rn ingan in div idu a l c ou ld r e a so na bly be e xpe c te d to constitute an unwa

rra nted invasion of per sonal privac y .” Id . (citing5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)( C)). In November

2007, the plaintiff submitted substantially the same r equest to the F BI ’s Chicag o Field Of

fice
. Id ., Ex . I . By

letter dated J anuar

y 17, 2008, FB IHea dquarte rs re turned the plaintiff’s re quest for third- party rec ords and e nclosed “ a Privac y Waiver and Cer

tification of I dentity form,” a dvising the pla intiff that Br own would be r equire d to complete and sign the waiver “bef ore a n acc urate sear ch of [] records [could] be conducted.” Id ., Ex . O. B y letter dated Ma rch 10, 2008, a fter the plaintiff had pr ovided B rown’s pr ivacy waiver , the FB Iinformed the plaintiff that it had located no re sponsive rec ords in the Chicag o Field Of fice
. Id ., Ex . W. The plaintiff unsuc cessf

ully appea led the F BI ’s re sponse to OI P. Id ., Ex . X, B B, CC. In Fe bruar

y 2008, the plaintiff submitted additional privacy waiver s from his fathe r, J on ath an P enn y , h is mo th er, C lar a P enn y , an d R odney W il li ams . Ha rdy

Decl . ¶¶29 -46 . T he FBI understood these waiver s to constitute additional requests for information, supplementingthe plaintiff’s re quest to the Chicag o Field Of fice
. Id . By

let ter dat ed J un e 10 , 2 00 8, th e FBI informed the pla intiff that it had identified re cords potentially responsive to his re quest but that its efforts to re trieve the rec ords wer e unsucc essful. Id ., Ex . R. I t theref ore c losed the plaintiff’s reque st and advised him of his rig ht to appeal to OI P. Id . In response to the plaintiff’s3

administrative appe al, the OI P, by letter of August 15, 2008, affirme d the FB I ’s deter mination, concludingthat “the F BI

conducte d an ade quate, r easona ble sea rch f or [responsive] recor ds[,] [butcould not] find the recor d that might be r esponsive to [the plaintiff’s] request.” Id ., Ex . T. The plaintiff c ommenced the instant action on August 25, 2008, alleg ing that the defe ndant’s ef

forts to locate rec ords re sponsive to his requests wer e inade quate. Se ege ne ra lly Compl. The defe ndant filed the instant motion on J anuar y 9, 2009. In its mot ion, the defe ndant
re pr e se nts that a ft e r t

he pla int if

f c omm e nc e d th is a c tio n, “ the F B Iloc ate d th e po te nti a lly responsive f

ile in question” but determined that the file is not responsive be cause it “conce rns another individual, not plainti ff.” Har dy Dec l. at 9 n.2.

III . A NA LY SIS A. Legal Standard f

or a Mot ion f

or Sum m ary Judgm ent in a FOIA D ispu te Summary judgme nt is appropriate when “ the pleading s, the discover y and disclosure materia ls on file, and any aff idavits show that there is no g enuine issue a s to any materia l fac t and that the movant is entitled to judgment a s a matter of law.” F ED . R. C IV . P. 56 (c ); se eals o Ce lote xCor p. v . Ca tre tt , 4 77 U. S. 3 17 , 3 22 (1 98 6) ; Diamond v. Atwood , 43 F.3d 1538, 1540 (D.C. Cir. 1995). To dete rmine which f acts a re “ materia l,” a c ourt must look to t he substantive law on which e ach c laim rests. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, I nc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A “g enuine issue” is one whose r esolution could establish an ele ment of a c laim or defe nse and, there fore , aff

ect the outc ome of the a ction. Celotex , 4 77 U. S. at 32 2; Anderson , 477 U.S. at 248. In rulingon a motion for summary judgme nt, the court must drawall justifiable infere nces in the nonmoving pa

rty ’s favor and a cce pt the nonmoving pa rty ’s evidenc e as true . Anderson , 4 77 U. S.4

at 25 5. A n onmov ingpa

rt y , h ow e ve r, mus t e sta

bli shmor e tha

n “ the me re e xiste nc e of

a sc int ill a of evide nce” in support of its posit ion. Id. at 252. To pre vail on a motion for summary judgme nt, the moving pa rty must show that the nonmoving par ty “fa il[ ed] to make a showing sufficie nt to establish the exi stence of an e lement essential to that par ty ’s ca se, and on which that party will bear the burden of

proof at trial.” Celotex , 477 U.S. at 322. By pointing to the abse nce of evide nce pr offe red by

the nonmoving pa

rty , a movingparty

may succe ed on summary judgme nt. Id. In addition, the nonmoving pa rty may not rely solely on alleg ations or conc lusory statements. Gree ne v. D alton , 1 64 F .3 d 6 71 , 6 75 (D .C. Cir . 1 99 9) ; Harding v. Gray , 9 F.3d 150, 15 4 ( D. C. C ir . 1 99 3) . Rathe r, the no nmo vin gpa rt y mus t pr e se nt s pe c if

ic fa c ts that w ou ld e na

ble
a re asonable jury

to find in its favor. Gree ne , 1 64 F .3 d at 67 5. I f t he e vid e nc e “ is m e re ly colora ble, or is not signific antly probative, summar

y judgme nt may

be grante d.” Anderson , 477 U.S. at 249-50 (inter

nal citations omitted). The F OIA mandate s full public disclosure of a g ency rec ords unless the re quested re cords “fa ll squarely” within one or more of the nine statutory exemptions
. W

ash. Post Co. v. U.S. Dep’ t of Agric. , 943 F. Supp. 31, 33 (D.D .C. 1996) ( quoting Burka v. U .S. Dep’ t of Health & Hu ma n S e rv s. , 87 F.3d 508, 515 ( D.C. Cir. 1996)). The c ourt may awa rd summary

judgme nt solely on the information provide d in affidavits or declar ations that descr ibe “the justifications for nondisclosure with rea sonably specific detail . . . and a

re not c ontroverte d by

either c ontrary evidenc e in the re cord nor by evidenc e of a g ency

bad fa ith.” Military Audit Project v. Casey , 65 6 F .2 d 7 24 , 7 38 (D .C. Cir . 1 98 1) ; see also Vaughn v . Rosen , 484 F.2d 820, 826 ( D.C. Cir. 1973), cert. de nied , 415 U.S. 977 (1974). When, as he re, r esponsive re cords a re not located, an
a g e nc y is e nti tle d to summa

ry jud g me nt i f i t e sta

bli sh e s “ be yon d mate ri a l do ub t [] that it5

conducte d a sea

rch r easona

bly calc ulated to uncove r all re levant docume nts.” W eisberg v. U

.S. Dep’ t of Justice , 705 F.2d 1344, 1351 ( D.C. Cir. 1983). For purposes of this showing , the ag ency “may rely upon aff idavits . . . , as long a s they are relatively

detailed a

nd nonconclusory and . . . submitted in good f aith.” Id . (citations and quotations omitted). The r equire d level of detail “se t[ s] forth the searc h terms and the ty pe of se arc h perf

ormed, a nd aver [s] that all files likely to contain re sponsive materia ls (if such re cords e x ist) were sear ched . . . .” Oglesby v. Dep’ t of the Army , 9 20 F .2 d 5 7, 68 (D .C. Cir . 1 99 0) ; ac c or d V ale nc ia- Luc e na v . U

.S . Co as t Gu ar d , 180 F.3d 321, 326 ( D.C. Cir. 1999). “I f the re quester pr oduces c ounterva iling evide nce placingthe suffic iency

of the identification or retrie val proc edure s g enuinely in issue, summary judgme nt is inappropriate.” Spannaus v. Cent. Intelligenc e Age ncy , 8 41 F . Su pp . 1 4, 16 (D .D .C. 1993) ( citing Church of Scientology v. Nat’l Sec . Agenc y , 610 F.2d 824, 836 ( D.C. Cir. 1979)). In deter mining the a dequac y

of a F OIA sea

rch, the court is guided by principles of
rea sonablene ss. See Campbe ll v. U.S. Dep’ t of Justice , 164 F.3d 20, 28 ( D.C. Cir. 1998). An ag ency is require d to produce only those rec ords in its custody and contr ol at the time of the FOIA re quest. McG eheev. Cent. Intelligenc e Age ncy , 697 F.2d 1095, 1110 ( D.C. Cir. 1983). B. T he De fend antP e r for m e d an A de quat e Se ar c h forRe spo nsiv e Re c or ds Th e de fe nd ant c onte nd s th at summa ry jud g me nt s ho uld

be g ra nte d in its fa vo r b e c a us e the e vid e nc e ov e rwhe lmi ng ly de mon str ate s th at it

c on du c te d a

re a so na ble se arc h o f i ts r e c or ds in response to the plaintiff’s re quest. Se ege ne ra lly Def .’s Mot. The plaintiff r esponds that there exis ts an issue of fa ct as to the re asonable ness of the de fenda nt’s eff orts. Se ege ne ra lly

Pl.’s Opp ’n. S peci fi cal ly , t he p lai nt if f su gg est s, wi th ou t el abo rat io n, th at i t w as error for FBI He a dq ua rt e rs , r athe r t

ha n th e Chi c a g o F ie ld O ff

ic e , to “ pr oc e ss” the se arc h c on du c te d in6

response to the reque st submit ted to the Chicag o Field Of fice
. Id . at 10 -1 1. Th e pla int if f a lso
c onte nd s th at th e te rm

“ War ra nt o f S e izur e & Mo nit ion No . 8 9 C 2 73 6” wa s im

pr op e rl y excluded from the se arc h terms. Pl.’s Opp’n, De cl. ¶ 41. To demonstrate the re asonable ness of its sear ch ef forts, the de fenda

nt proffe rs the decla ration of Da

vid M. Hardy , Section Chief of the Rec ord/Information Dissemination Section of the F B I ’s Re c or ds Mana g e me nt D ivi sio n. Ha rd y De c l. ¶ 1. Ha rd y su pe rv ise s “ a

pp ro ximate ly 204 employ ees . . . whose collec tive mission i s to effe ctively plan, deve lop, direct, a

nd manag e” FOIA and Privac y

Act (“ PA”) re quests to the FB I
. Id . ¶ 2. Ha rdy states that he is “a

war e of the FB I ’s treatment of plaintiff’s two F OIA/PA reque sts for documents c oncer ning himself a

nd proper ty located a t 4901 West C ong ress, Chicag o, I llinois . . . and the r elated pr ivacy waiver s of Tammie B rown, Jonathan Penny , Clara Penny , and Rodney Wil liams.” Id . ¶ 3. Ha

rdy ’s state me nts are ba se d o n h is “ pe rs on a l kn ow le dg e , u po n in fo rm atio n p ro vid e d to [him ] in [h is] officia l capa city , and upon conc lusions and determinations re ache d and made in acc ordanc e there with.” Id . ¶ 2. He there fore is competent to testify about the issues at ha

nd. Se eSa

fe Car d Servs., I nc. v. SE C , 9 2 6 F. 2 d

1 1 9 7 , 1 2 0 1 (D
. C
. C i r. 1 9 9 1 ) ( d et erm i n i n g th atth e p er s o ni nch ar ge of a se arc h is “the most appropriate per son to provide a c omprehe nsive aff idavit”) (c itation omi tte d) ; Barnard v. De

p’t of Homeland Se c. , 531 F. Supp. 2d 131, 138 (D.D .C. 2008) (noting that “ [a] d e c lara

nt i n a F OIA c a se satis fi e s th e pe rs on a l kn ow le dg e re qu ir e me nt i n Ru le 56 (e ) i f i nh i s d ec l ar at i o n , h e a t t es t s t o h i s p er s o n al kn o wl ed ge o f t h e p ro ce d ure s u s edi nh an d l i n g a FOIA re quest and his familiarity with the documents in question”) ( citations and interna l quotation marks and br acke ts omit ted). As Ha rd y state s, the de fe nd ant i nit ia lly se arc he d th e ma in a

nd c ro ss- re fe re nc e d f

ile s o f i ts C e n tr a l R e c o r d s S ys t e mb y th e a d dr e s s o f th e s u b j e c tp r o p e rty, th e n am e s M i c h a e l P e nny,Whereas a m ain entry or file “carries the n am e co rrespon dingw ith a subject of a file,” a cro ss- 1 re fe re nc e “i s g en er al ly [ ] a m er e m enti on

o r re fe re nc e to an in di v id ua l .
. . o r [] s ub

ject m atte r, contain ed in

a docum ent lo cated in an other ‘m ain’ file on a differe nt su bject m atter.” H ardy Decl. ¶ 49
. 7 Tammie B rown, Jonathan Penny , Clara Penny , Rodney Wil liams (and var iants thereof ), and tho se ind ivi du a ls’ date s o f b ir th a nd so c ia l se c ur ity

numbe rs . H ard

y De c l. ¶ ¶ 5 3- 60 . It a lso identified potential cr oss-ref ere nces for Jonathan Penny and Rodney

Wil liams, but a “hand 1
sear ch of the appropr iate shelve s at the [Chi cag o Field Of fice ] and the Alexandria Recor ds Center” failed to locate any rec ords. Id . ¶¶ 58, 60. In response to the plaintiff’s counte rargument that the def

endant should have sear ched the terms “Warr ant of Seizure & Monition No. 89 C 27 36 ,” Pl. ’s Op p’ n, De c l. ¶ 41 , H ard y no te s th at th e de fe nd ant e xpand e d it s in iti a l se arc h to inc lud e the a fo re me nti on e d te rm s, a s w e ll a s te rm s e nc omp a ssi ngoth e r w arr ants and va ri ants there of. SeeDef

.’s Reply , Second De cl. of Da vid M. Hardy

(“Sec ond Har dy

Dec l.”) ¶¶

7-9. Ba sed on the de tailed desc riptions of the filing sy stems searc hed and the sear ch methods employ ed, seeHar dy

Dec l. ¶¶ 47-60; Sec ond Har dy Dec l. ¶¶ 7-9, the court de termines that the defe ndant’s combined se arc hes we re r easona bly calc ulated to re trieve a ll responsive re cords a nd, thus, adequate, see M

cCready v . Nicholson , 465 F.3d 1, 14 ( D.C. Cir. 2006) (holdingthat the district court prope rly

g rante d summary

judgme nt to the ag ency

beca use the a ffidavit submitted by the ag ency

set forth the se arc h terms and ty pe of se arc h perf

ormed a nd established that no responsive r ecor ds were rec overe d within the files likely to contain re sponsive materia ls). Be cause “the a dequac y

of a F OIA sea

rch is g ener ally

deter mined not by

the fruits of the se arc h, but by the appr opriatene ss of the methods used to ca rry out the sear ch,” Iturralde v. Comptroller of Currency , 3 15 F .3 d 3 11 , 3 15 (D .C. Cir . 2 00 3) , “ the fa c t th at a pa rt ic ula r d oc ume nt w a s n otAltho ug h the plaintiff also tak es issu e w ith the alleg ed untim eliness of the defe ndant’s respo nse, 2 Pl.’s Opp ’n at 2- 3, “initial de lay s in respon dingto a F OIA request are rarely , if ev er, g round s for d i s c r e d i t i n g l a t e r

a f f i d a vi t s b y th e a ge n c y” d e mo n s t r a t i n g i t s c o mp l i a n c e wi t hth e FO IA
. Iturraldev. C

omp troller o

f C urrenc y, 3 15 F
. 3d

3 11 , 3 15 ( D
. C
. C ir
. 2 00 3) ; see Perryv. Blo ck , 684 F.2 d 1 21, 12 5 (D. C. C ir. 1 982) (notingthat “how ev er fitful or d elay ed th e releas e of in fo rm at io n un de r th e F O I A m ay b e, o nc e al l r eq

ue st ed r ec or ds are s ur

re nd er ed , f

ed er al c ourt s hav e no f urth er s ta tuto ry f un ct io n to p er fo rm . ”) ; accor d B oyd v. Crim inal D iv. o f U .S. D ep’t o

f Justice , 4 75 F
. 3d

3 81 , 3 88 ( D
. C
. C ir
. 2 00 7) ( ob se rv in gth at “ be caus e th e re po rtw as lo cate d in the w ork file and subseq

uently disclo sed, the issue is m oot fo r purposes of this FO I A action. ”) (c it at io n om it te d)
. H en ce , th e ti m in go f th e de fe nd ant’ s re sp on se is o f no m om ent. found does not [in it self] demonstrate the ina dequac y of a se arc h,” Boyd v . Criminal Div. of U.S.

2 Dep’ t of Justice , 475 F.3d 381, 390- 91 (D.C. Cir. 2007). Ac cording ly , beca use the de fenda

nt has
e sta bli sh e d b e yon d mate ri a l do ub t th at it s se arc h w a s r e a so na bly c a lc ulate d to un c ov e r a ll rele vant documents, the c ourt g rants the de fenda nt’s motion for summary

judgme nt. See Valencia-Luce na , 180 F.3d at 326.

IV . C ON CL USI ON For the fore g oing r easons, the c ourt g rants the de fenda nt’s motion for summary

judgme nt. An Orde r consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is separately and conte mporane ously

issued this 21st day

of August, 2009.
RI CARDO M. URBI NA Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge