ROBERT V. JUST ICE, P laintif f,
v. INTERNAL REVENUE SE RVICE,

Defendan t. UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE DIS TRICT OF COLUM BIA

Civil Action 10-00568 (HHK )

MEMORAN DUM OP INION Robert V. Just ice, pr ocee ding pro se , bring s this action under the F ree dom of Information Act (“ FOIA”) , 5 U.S.C. § 552, ag ainst the Interna l Revenue Ser vice ( “I RS”). J ustice see ks to compel the r elea se of a

letter purpor

tedly written by

the Commiss ioner of the I RS i n 1985. After
sear chingits recor ds, the I RS di d not find the reque sted letter. Be fore the Court is the I RS’s mot ion for summary judgme nt and J ustice’s opposition there to. Upon consideration of the I RS’s mot ion, the opposition t here to, and the summary
judgme nt rec ord, the Court conc ludes that the motion should be gr anted. I. BACKG ROUND J ustice’s F OIA re quest seeks “ a letter sent by Commi ssioner Roscoe L . Eg g er, Jr. of the I RS t o all district directors dated April 4, 1985.” Compl., Ex . A at 1. The letter Just ice se eks purportedly

advises I RS officials that they should issue a tax refund to individuals upon request beca use the Six teenth Amendme nt was not proper ly ratified. See J ustice De cl., Ex. 1. I n response to J ustice’s re quest, Sharon House , the FO I A coor dinator for the Commiss ioner’s office , located f

ive boxes of rec ords from the Commissioner’s re adingfile. De f.’s Mot. forSumm. J ., Ex . 1 (De cl. of Sharon H ouse) ( “House Dec l.”) ¶¶ 10–11. House sea

rche d those documents bec ause the “re adingfile g ener ally consists of corr espondenc e wr itten by the Commi ssioner” a

nd “I knew that it was likely

that if the re quested doc ument exis ted, it would probably be located” in that file. Id. ¶¶ 9–10. House re viewed the box es but did not find the letter soug ht by

J ustice. Id. ¶¶ 12–13. House also asked a n I RS l ibraria

n to attempt to locate the letter; the librar ian re sponded by informing House that “ [t ]here we re thing s from that month, but nothing f rom that day , nor sig ned by the Commiss ioner.” Id. ¶ 13. On May 11, 2005, the I RS i nformed Justice that it could not locate the r equeste d letter. Compl., Ex . B. Justi ce a

ppeale d this finding, but was infor med by the I RS t hat the ag ency

had alre ady conducte d an ade quate se arc h. Id. , Ex s. C, D. This suit followed. II. ANALYSIS A. Legal Stand ard FOIA provides a cce ss to feder al ag ency rec ords, subject to ce rtain spec ified exceptions. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a), (b) . In response to a FO I A re quest, an a g ency must “conduct[] a sea

rch
rea sonably

calc ulated to uncove r all re levant docume nts.” Steinberg v. U .S. Dep’ t of Justice , 23 F.3d 548, 551 ( D.C. Cir. 1994) (quoting W eisberg v. U

.S. Dep’ t of Justice , 745 F.2d 1476, 1485 (D.C. Cir. 1985)) ( internal quotation marks omitted). Summary judgme nt is appropriate if “the mova nt shows that there is no g enuine dispute as to any materia l fac t and the movant is entitled to judgme nt as a matter of law.” Fe d. R. Civ. P
. 56(a) . When the adequa cy of an a g ency ’s sea

rch f or re quested re cords is at issue, a n ag ency is entitled to summary

judgme nt if it demonstrates that “it has c onducted a sear ch re asonably

2calc ulated to uncove r all re levant docume nts.” Steinberg , 23 F.3d at 551 (quoting W eisberg , 745 F.2d at 1485) (interna l quotation marks omitted). In resolvingdisputes about the ade quacy of a se arc h, an ag ency ’s dec laration is entit led to a pre sumption of good f

aith. SafeCard Servs., Inc . v. SEC , 926 F.2d 1197, 1200 ( D.C. Cir. 1991). To cha lleng e an a g ency ’s showingthat it complied with FOIA, a plaintiff must point to evidenc e of ba d faith. Moore v . Aspin , 916 F. Supp. 32, 35–36 (D.D .C. 1996). In doing so, howeve r, it is not enough to make “‘pur ely speculative claims about the e x istence a nd discovera bility of other doc uments.’” SafeCard Servs. , 926 F.2d at 1200 (quoting Ground Saucer W atch, Inc . v. CIA , 692 F.2d 770, 771 ( D.C. Cir. 1981)). B. The IRS is Entitled to Su m m ary Judgm ent An ag ency

may submit affidavits or dec larations to show that it s sear ch for responsive
rec ords “us[ed] methods which can be rea sonably expected to produc e the infor mation reque sted.” Oglesby v . Dep’ t of the Army , 920 F.2d 57, 68 ( D.C. Cir. 1990). The a ffidavits or decla rations must be “re asonably detailed” and “se t[ ] forth the sear ch ter ms and ty pe of se arc h perf ormed, a nd aver [] that all files likely to contain re sponsive materia ls (if such re cords e x ist)
wer e sea rche d.” Nation Magazine v. U.S. Customs Serv. , 71 F.3d 885, 890 ( D.C. Cir. 1995) (interna l citation and quotation marks omitted). Conclusory statements asser

ting that the a g ency has re viewed a ll releva

nt files will not suffice. Id. In this case, the I RS arg ues that it fully complied with its obli g ations under F OI A to execute an a dequate sear ch. In support of its argument, the I RS provides House’s dec laration descr ibing the a g ency ’s sea rch f or the letter

soug ht by

J ustice. See ge nerally House De cl. J ustice re sponds with a decla ration of his own, statingthat he is unable to pre sent any fac ts in 3opposition t o the I RS’s mot ion beca use he ha s not been a llowed to pursue discove ry . He a lso
aver s that House’s de clar ation should not be acc orded a presumption of g ood faith bec ause the letter he seeks to disclose wa s “orde red de stroy ed.” Justice Dec l. ¶ 4. J ustice’s a rguments lack merit. The re cord e stablishes that the I RS conducted sea rche s that were rea sonably expected to produce the re quested infor mation. See Ste inberg , 23 F.3d a t 551. I n particula

r, House states in her de clar ation that she and a n I RS l ibraria

n sear ched f

or the letter

in locations that House
rea sonably

believed w ould contain letters a uthored by

the Commiss ioner during the y ear in which Just ice c ontends the letter w as penne d. House De cl. ¶¶ 9–13. T he dec laration is detailed and spec ific, allowingthe Court to conclude that the rele vant files we re likely sear ched. See Nation Magazine , 71 F.3d at 890. Wit h respe ct to J ustice’s a rgument that House’s de clar ation is not entitl ed to a presumption of g ood faith bec ause the letter wa s “orde red de stroy ed,” the Court cannot agree . Dec larations such as House’ s are acc orded a presumption of g ood faith. SafeCard Servs., 926 F.2d at 1200. The pre sumption cannot be re butted by “pure ly speculative claims.” Id . J ustice’s contention that the re quested letter was “ order ed destroyed” a mounts to a “purely

speculative claim,” a s he does not provide any evidenc e in support of this asser tion. Further

more, the f

act that the I RS di d not locate the r equeste d letter doe s not advanc e Just ice’ s case . An ag ency ’s
sear ch will not be pre sumed inadequate simply beca use the a g ency

did not find the reque sted documents. Boyd v . Criminal Div. of U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 475 F.3d 381, 391 ( D.C. Cir. 2007). Acc ording ly , the Court finds that the I RS compli ed with its searc h obligations. C. Justice is Not Entitled to Discove ry 4J ustice re quests discovery under Rule 56( f) of

the Fe dera l Rules of Civil Procedur e, 1 arguing that discovery

would raise g enuine issues of material fa ct. I n FOIA ac tions, however, discovery is disfavored. Judicial W atch, Inc . v. U.S. De

p’t of Justice , 185 F. Supp. 2d 54, 65 (D.D.C. 2002) ( citing Nation Magazine, 71 F.3d at 892; Oglesby , 920 F.2d at 68). Courts permit discovery in FOIA ca ses wher e a “ plaintiff has made a suff icient showingthat the ag ency acte d in bad fa ith.” Voinche v . FBI , 412 F. Supp. 2d 60, 72 (D.D .C. 2006) (citing Carney v. U .S. Dep’ t of Justice , 19 F.3d 807, 812 ( 2d Cir. 1994)). J ustice asse rts that the re quested letter was “ order ed destroyed.” Justice Dec l. ¶ 4. As the Court indicates above , such an a ssertion is purely speculative, as Jus tice has f ailed to provide a

ny evidenc e in support of this contention. B eca use discover

y in FOIA ca ses is the exception and not the rule, a nd beca use Jus tice has f

ailed to adduc e any

evidenc e that the I RS has acted in bad f aith, the Court denies his discover y reque st. III. CONCLUSION As set forth a

bove, the I RS has demonstrated that it conducte d sear ches r easona bly expected to produc e the r equeste d letter. Ac cording ly , the I RS’s mot ion for summary judgme nt will be g rante d. A sepa

rate order acc ompanies this memorandum opinion.

Henr y H. Kenne dy , J r. United States District J udg e

Since J ustice re sponded to the I RS’s mot ion for summary judgme nt, Rule 56(f) 1 has bee n rec odified “w ithout subst antial cha ng e” a s Rule 56(d). F ed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) 2010 amend. c mt. (2010). 5