Pursuant to Rule 25(d), Rajiv Shah has bee n substitut ed for Henr ietta For e as the 1 defe ndant in this action. S c h m i dth a s b r o u g h tth i s a c t i o na g a i n s tR a j i v S h ahi nh i s o f

f i c i a l c a p a c i ty a s U S A ID 2 Administrator. Howe ver, F OIA ac tions may be brought only

ag ainst an ag ency . See 5 U .S. C. § 5 52 (a )( 4) (B ). De fe nd ant d oe s n ot s e e k d ism iss a l on thi s b a sis . T he re fo re , th e Court sh a ll su bs tit ute USA I D a s th e re a l pa

rt y in i nte re st. J OSEPH J AMES SC HMI DT, Plaintiff,
v. RAJ I V SHAH, Administrator, United States Ag e nc y fo r I nte rn atio na l D e ve lop me nt, De fe nd ant. UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA

Civil Action No. 08–2185 (CKK)

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION 1 (Mar ch 18, 2010) This is a Fre edom of Information Ac t (“F OIA”) case broug ht by Plaintiff J oseph James Schmidt aga inst his former employ er, the United States Ag ency for International Development (“ USA I D” ). Sc hmi dt c la ims that U SAI D h a s v iol ate d th e F re e do m of Inf or matio n A c t, 5 U. S.C. § 552, by failingto timely

respond to thre e re quests he submitted to USAI D on May 14, Se pte mbe r 9 , a

nd Se pte mbe r 1 6, 20 08 . Sc hmi dt s e e ks a c omp le te re sp on se to h is r e qu e sts , w ith no exceptions, and a wa iver of a ny applicable char g es base d on the ag ency ’s fa ilure to provide a timely response . USAI D contends that it has now produce d all responsive doc uments and proper ly reda cted or

withheld cer

tain documents pursua

nt to FOIA Exempti on 5, see 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)( 5), and F OIA Exempti on 6, see id. § 552(b)( 6). De fenda nt has filed a

[16] Motion for 2Apar t from his construed motion for summar y judgme nt, which includes e x hibits filed 3 in support, Schmidt has filed three me moranda with supporting mate rials. See [18] Plaintiff’s Op po sit ion

to D e fe nd ant’ s Withh old ing , Co nc e a lme nt a nd Re da c tio n o f R e qu e ste d D oc ume nts and Information Relate d to Fre edom of Information Ac t (FO I A) Reque sts; [ 21] P laintiff’s Response in “Opposition” of D efe ndant’s Motion for Summary J udg ement [sic] and Reque st for a Tria l; and [24] Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Defenda nt’s Fa ulty Argument for Summary J udg ment and in Fa

vor of Plaintiff’s Reque st for a Tr ial or Court Sponsored Mediation. Be cause some of these filings e x cee ded the pa g e limits i n the L ocal Rules, Schmidt has filed a

[26] Motion Requesting the Court’s Per mission and Acce ptance of F ilings that Deviate from L ocal Rule 7(h) and 7(e ), which he subsequently resubmitted. See Dkt. Nos. 26, 2 7
. Be cau s e S ch m i dti s p ro ce ed i n g pro se and it a pp e ars that he ha s atte mpt e d in g oo d f a ithto comply with the L ocal Rules, the Court shall GRANT his motion to acce pt these filing s and c on sid e r t he m in the c on te xt of

a dju dic atin gthe pa

rt ie s’ c ro ss- mot ion s f

or summa ry jud g me nt. 2 Summary J udg ment on this basis, which Schmidt opposes. S chmidt has also filed a [19] Motion Re g ard ingDe fe nd ant’ s L a c k o f R e sp on siv e ne ss t o F re e do m of Inf or matio n Re qu e sts (her einaf ter, “ Pl.’s Mot.”), which the Court construe s as a c ross-motion for summary judgme nt. Schmidt has filed numerous brie fs in support of his position and in opposit ion to Defe ndant’s mot ion , a nd the mot ion s are no w r ipe fo r d e c isi on . Af te r a tho ro ug h r e vie w o f t

he pa rt ie s’ 3 submissi ons and attac hments thereto a nd applicable case law and statutory authority , the Court shall GRANT-I

N-PART and DEN Y-I

N-PART WI THOUT PREJ UDI CE Defe ndant’s motion for summary judgme nt, gr antingthe motion as to all issues ex cept the a dequac y of the sea

rch reg ardingelec tronic bac k-up tape s and re cords in the Of fice of the Inspector G ener al, the Of fice of F inancial Ma

nag ement, or the Offic e of the Gene ral Counsel, with respe ct to which the motion shall be denie d without prejudice. The Court shall also DENY Schmidt’s construe d motion for summary judgme nt, denying w ithout prejudice with re spect to the a dequac y of the sea

rch a s descr ibed above
.As a pr e lim ina

ry matte r, the Court

no te s th at it

str ic tly a dh e re s to the te xt of

L oc a l Civ il 4 Rule 7(h) (f

ormerly Rule 56.1 when re solving motions for summary judgme nt). See B urke v

. Go uld, 2 86 F .3 d 5 13 , 5 19 (D .C. Cir . 2 00 2) (f ind ingdis tr ic t c ourt s mu st i nv ok e the loc a l r ule be fo re a pp lyingit t o th e c a se ). Th e Court ha s a dv ise d th e pa

rt ie s th at it

str ic tly a dh e re s to Rul e 7(h) a nd has stated that it “a ssumes fac ts identified by the moving pa

rty in its st atement of materia l fac ts are a dmitted, unless such a fa ct is controver ted in the statement of g enuine issues fi le d in op po sit ion

to t he mot ion .” [13] Sc he du lin gOr de r a t 2 ( Ma y 4, 20 09 ). Thus , in

mos t ins tanc e s th e Court

sh a ll c ite on ly

to o ne pa rt y ’s State me nt o f M ate ri a l F a c ts ( “ Stmt .” ) u nle ss a statement is contra dicted by the opposing party . The Court shall use “ Def .’s Stmt.” to refer

to the revised Stateme nt of Mater ial Fa cts filed by Def endant in its opposition t o Schmidt’s disposi tive motion. The Court shall also cite direc tly to evidence in the rec ord, whe re a ppropriate
. 3 I. BACKG ROUND A. Sc hm idt ’s FO

IA Re qu ests On May 14 , 2 00 8, Sc hmi dt s ub mitte d a F OI A r e qu e st v ia

e ma il t o U SAI D. Th e re qu e st soug ht the following information: “All email cor responde nce ( emails, memos and letter) produce d by

the followingindividuals related spe cifica lly to me (but addre ssed to persons other than me) a s of August 1, 2006, including a ny deleted e mails on backup tape : [ list of nine individuals] .” See Def

.’s Stmt. ¶ 2. Schmidt followed up on his reque st with email inquiries on

4 J une 24, June 30, and J uly 9, 2008. Answer

at 2. On Jul y

10, 2008, USAI D FO I A Tea m L eade r Sy lvia L ankfor d responde d to Schmidt and apologized for an appa rent mix -up ca

used by an
ear lier F OIA re quest submitted by Schmidt that is not releva nt to this litigation. See Pl.’s Mot., Ex . 3 (7/10/2008 email from L ankfor d to Schmidt). S chmidt’s FOIA re quest was g iven a trac king numbe r (F -00237-08) and assig ned to Ms. Gwen Ma rcus f or proc essing
. Id. On

July 15, 2008, Ms. Marcus r esponded to Schmidt and assure d him that the ag ency was wor king towards c ompleting his re quest. Id. (7/15/2008 email from Mar cus to Schmidt). On September 29, 2008, Schmidt sent a complaint by email about the de lay

in proce ssing his May

14 reque st. See id. (9/29/2008 email from Schmidt to L ankfor d).The Court has pa raphr ased ma

ny of Schmidt’s reque sts and omitted the names of 5 sp e c if ic a g e nc y of fi c ia ls i de nti fi e d b y

Sc hmi dt. 4 On Se pte mbe r 9 , 2 00 8, Sc hmi dt s ub mitte d a se c on d F OIA r e qu e st s e e kin g“ [a]ll inf or matio n, inc lud inge ma il c or re sp on de nc e , me mos and le tte rs ” re g ard ingfi ft e e n s e pa ra te matters identified by

Schmidt. Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 3. Many of these matters per

tain to issues that
wer e ra ised by

Schmidt in a related c ase that was dismissed by this Court. See Sc hmidt v. Shah , Civil Action No. 08-1831 ( D.D.C. Mar. 17, 2010) . The fif teen items re quested c an be
summa ri zed a s f oll ow s: 5 1. information re g ardingthe alleg ed use of Iraq- related appr opriations for non- Iraqre late d s e rv ic e s and

an a lle g e d c ov e r- up the re of ; 2. information provided by a par ticular named USAI D offic ial to other ag ency officia ls reg ardingSchmidt’s protected EE O information, which Schmidt believe d to be an unlaw ful disclosure; 3. “Information re lating to the O ffice of Ac quisiti on and Assistance ’s handlingof [S chmidt’s] confidential medical lea ve information”; 4. “Information re g ardingthe sharingof [Schmidt ’s] confidential employ ee a nd medical infor

mation” by

three particula

r name d ag ency

officia ls and other unname d a g e nc y

of fi c ia ls i n v iol atio n o f t

he Pr iva c y

Ac t; 5. information re g ardingthe sharingof Schmidt’s confidential EEO information on the pa rt of tw o n ame d in div idu a ls i n th e USA I D’ s O ff ic e of Eq ua l O pp or

tun ity Prog rams (EO P); 6. information re g ardingUSAI D’s eva luation of Schmidt’s application for employ ment under job a

nnounceme nt number AI D-08-0019A -DC13; 7. information re lated to the ag ency ’s re view of Schmidt’s L eave without Pay (LWOP) , in c lud ingits de te rm inatio n r e g ard ingov e r $ 10 ,0 00 a lle g e dly ow e d to Schmidt and the rationale for not re imbursing him for f unds err oneously

taken fr om h is p ay c he c ks ; 8
. i n f

o r m at i o nr e g ar d i n gth e a g e n c y ’ s d e c i s i o nt o d e a c t i v at e S c h m i dt ’ s U S A ID identification badg e; 9. information per

taining to one named a g ency officia l’s ref

usal to provide Schmidt wi th a wr itt e n jo b r e c omm e nd atio n; 10. information g ener ated by a name d USAI D attorne y for r eview a

nd comment by o th e r a g e n c y o f

f i c i a l s r e g ar d i n gS c h m i dt ’ s e mp l o ym e n tw i thth e a g e n c y; 11. meetingnotes relating to a te leconf ere nce be tween Schmidt and his for mer supervisor whe n she purpor tedly denied Schmidt a “r easona ble ac commodation” f o r h i s d i s a b i l i ty;5

12
. inf

or matio n r e g ard ingthe a g e nc y ’s a lle g e d g ro ss n e g lig e nc e in n ot p ro mpt ly removingSchmidt from its pay roll sy stem following his re signation and pr od uc inga Stand ard F or m 50 in a re a so na ble pe ri od

of tim e 13. information g ener ated by the EOP, the Off

ice of Acquisition and Assistance, the Offic e of Sec urity , and other office rs involving USAI D’s alleg edly unlawful a c tio ns a g a ins t Sc hmi dt r e g ard inghis e mpl oy me nt; 14. “Information re g arding[S chmidt’s] forced/pre ssured re signation ge nerated by members of

GC, OAA, EOP et a l [ sic]”; and 15. information re g ardingsensitivity trainingof USAI D per sonnel since Oc tober 2006 re latin gto r a c e , g e nd e r, se xua l ha ra ssm e nt, and

ho sti le wo rk inge nv ir onme nt. Def .’s Stmt. ¶ 3. On Se pte mbe r 1 6, 20 08 , Sc hmi dt s ub mitte d a thi rd F OIA r e qu e st. Th is r e qu e st s ou g ht: (1) “ copies of a

ny settlement ag ree ments rea ched by [US AI D] from 1995 to present re g arding possible violations of FAR [Feder al Acquisition Reg ulation] 16.505 fair oppor tunity ”; (2) “ [a] ny information or lists produced by USAI D since 1995 r eg ardingpossible violations of FAR 16 .5 05 ” ; and

(3 ) “ wr itt e n ‘ Justi fi c atio ns ’ f or ta sk or de rs awa

rd e d b oth in Wa sh ing ton

and in
overse as missions (under Indefinite Qua ntity Contracts (I QCs)) fr om 1995 to present, whe re F AR 16.505 and/or fa ir opportunity provisions within t he contr act we re not prope rly followed.” Def

.’s Stmt . ¶ 4. Schmidt also asked that his identity be kept c onfidential duringthe ag ency ’s sea rche s for r ecor ds. Id. USA I D p ro c e sse d th e tw o Se pte mbe r r e qu e sts a s a sin g le F OIA i nq

uir y and de signate d it as F ile No. F- 00026-09. De f.’s Stmt. ¶ 5. B. USAID’

s Search for ResponsiveRec ords USAI D proc esses F OIA re quests throug h its I nformation and Re cords Division in the Bur eau of Manag ement (“ FOIA Off ice” ). See Def

.’s Mot., Ex . 1 (De cl. of Sylvia Putman L ankfor d) (he reina fter, “ L ankfor d Dec l.”) ¶ 1. When the F OIA Off ice r ece ives a re quest, a Pub lic Af fa ir s Sp e c ia lis t c on ta c ts a ny of fi c e that mi g ht h ave the inf or matio n r e qu e ste d, c oll e c ts6

and org anizes all responsive doc uments, and consults with the USAI D Off ice of the Gene ral Counsel to ensure that no pr otected, non- public information is inadverte ntly disclosed. Id. ¶ 2. Up o nr e c e i v i n gS c h m i dt ’ s r e qu e s t s , th e F O IAO f f i c e d e t e r m i n e d th atf i v e d i f f e r e n tU S A ID of fi c e s sh ou ld b e se a

rc he d f or re sp on siv e re c or ds : th e Of fi c e of Eq ua l O pp or

tun ity Pr og ra ms, Offic e of the Chief Information Of fice r, Off ice of Acquisition and Assistance, O ffice of Human Resource s, and Off

ice of the Chief F inancial Of

fice r. Id. ¶ 14. Eac h of these of fice s was aske d to searc h for the r eleva

nt documents within a ce rtain timefra me, 2006-2008. Id. ¶ 15. The
su bje c t matte r o f t

he se arc he s v ari e d b y

e a c h o ff ic e , b ut s ome of

the se arc h te rm s w e re “ mis us e of Iraq f unding,” “violation of EEO r egulations,” “lea ve without pay ,” and “ forc ed/pre ssured resig nation.” Id. ¶ 16. Eac h of the off ices provide d all responsive doc uments to the FOIA Off ice or to the Off

ice of Gene ral Counsel to be produc ed to Schmidt. Id. ¶ 18. In response to Schmidt’s May 14, 2008, reque st, a fore nsic sear ch wa s conducte d by the Of fi c e of the Chi e f I

nf or matio n O ff

ic e r o n a ll e ma ils se nt o r r e c e ive d b y the USA I D w or

k e ma il
a dd re sse s o f a ll i nd ivi du a ls t arg e te d in Sc hmi dt’ s r e qu e sts . L ank fo rd De c l. ¶ 17 . F our e ma il
acc ounts were inacc essible bec ause those e mploy ees ha d left the a g ency . Id. Emails from the other individuals’ ac counts wer e extracte d if they included iterations of Schmidt’s name, and they wer e then r eviewe d by

the Off ice of Gene ral Counsel. Id. Am ita bhKh ard or i, a

n atto rn e y in the Off ice of Gene ral Counsel, re viewed the extracted e mails and identified those that we re responsive to Schmidt’s specif ic re quests. See De f. ’s Op p’ n, Ex. 2 (D e c l. o f A mit a bhKh ard or i) (her einaf ter, “ Khar dori Dec l.”) ¶ 8. B eca use Schmidt’s May

2008 reque st did not specify any particula r substance , Mr. Khar dori org anized the re sponsive documents ac cordingto the cate g ories listed in his September 2008 re quests. Id. ¶ 10.FOIA Exempti on 6 cover s “per sonnel and medic al files and similar f iles the disclosure 6 of which w ould constitute a clea rly unwar rante d invasion of per sonal privac y .” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)( 6). FOIA Exempti on 5 cover s “inter- ag ency or intra- ag ency

memorandums or le tters which 7 would not be ava ilable by law to a pa

rty other than a

n ag ency in liti g ation with the ag ency .” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5) Sc hmi dt c on te nd s th at D e fe nd ant h a s f a ile d to pr od

uc e any do c ume nts in r e sp on se to h is 8 May 2008 reque st. Howeve r, Mr. Kha rdori’s de clar ation explains t hat re sponses to the May 2008 reque st were included with and c ateg orized acc ordingto the response s to the September 7 C. USAID’

s Production of Records USAI D’s Information and Re cords Division sent Schmidt all responsive re cords in two batche s. The first set of

rec ords was se nt with a letter on Apr il 17, 2009, advising that 255 pa g es of re sp on siv e do c ume nts we re pr ov ide d a nd that no re sp on siv e do c ume nts we re fo un d f or ite ms numbere d 5, 10, 11, and 15 fr om Schmidt’s S eptember 9, 2008, reque st. L ankfor d Dec l. ¶ 9. The letter also advised that, with re spect to Schmidt’s September 16, 2008, r equest, ther e we re no responsive doc uments reg ardingreque st item 1 and that reque sts 2 and 3 wer e vague and overbr oad. Id. This first set consisted of doc uments that contained no F OIA re dactions or
w i th h o l d i n g s a

p artth anp e r s o n a l c o n t a c ti n f o r m at i o no f g o v e r n m e n te mp l o y e e s un d e r

F O IA Ex emption 6. Id. ¶ 8 . T he F OIA O ff ic e se nt S c hmi dt t

he se c on d s e t of

re sp on siv e do c ume nts 6 with a letter on A

pril 23, 2009. Id. ¶ 1 0. Th e le tte r a dv ise d th at th e se c on d s e t of do c ume nts
c o n s i s t e d o f 1 1 2 p a g e s an d

th atn o a d d i t i o n a l d o c u m e n t s r e g ar d i n gth e S e p t e mb e r 9 , 2 0 0 8 , F O IA reque st items 4, 5, 6, 10, and 15 were included. Id. The sec ond set consisted of doc uments that contained some reda ctions or withholdings ba sed on F OIA Exempti on 5. Id. The sec ond set of 7 documents also conta ined some re dactions base d on FOIA Exempti on 6. Id. ¶ 11. These latter reda ctions were identified on the doc uments themselves. Id. 82008 reque sts. See Khar dori Dec l. ¶ 10. 8 II. LEGAL STANDARD In revie wingmotions for summary judgme nt under F OIA, the Court must conduct a de
novo revie w of the re cord. See 5 U.S.C. § 522(a) (4)( B) . In the FO I A context, “ de novo revie w require s the court to ‘a scer tain whether

the ag ency

has sustained its burden of demonstratingthat the documents re quested . . . a re e x empt from disclosure under the FOIA.’” Assassinati on Archive s &Researc h Ctr. v. Cent. Intelligence A gency , 334 F.3d 55, 57 ( D.C. Cir. 2003) (qu o t i n g Summers v . Dep’ t of Justice , 140 F.3d 1077, 1080 ( D.C. Cir. 1998)). Summary judgme nt is proper whe n “the plea dings, the discovery [i f any] and disclosure mater ials 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 as a matter of la

w.” F ed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). All underlying f

acts a nd infere nces a

re a naly zed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving pa

rty . Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, I nc. , 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986). Only afte r an a g ency seekingsummary

judgme nt proves that it has fully discharg ed its FOIA obliga tions is s ummary judgme nt appropriate. Mo or e v . A sp in , 9 1 6 F. S u p p . 3 2 , 3 5 (D
. D. C
. 1 9 9 6 ) ( ci t i n g W eisberg v. Dep’ t of Justice , 705 F.2d 1344, 1350 ( D.C. Cir. 1983). In opposing a motion for summary judgme nt, a par

ty must offer mor e than c onclusory statements. See B roaddrick v. E xec . Office of the President , 1 3 9 F. S u

p p . 2 d 5 5 , 6 5 (D
. D. C
. 2 0 0 1 ) ( ci t i n g Laningham v. U.S. Navy , 813 F.2d 12 36 , 1 24 1 ( D. C. C ir . 1 98 7) ). Ind e e d, a pla int if f p ur su ingan a c tio n und e r F OIA mus t e sta bli sh that the ag ency

has improper ly

claimed a

n exemption as a matter of la w or that the a g ency

failed to seg reg ate a

nd disclose all non-e x empt information in the re quested doc uments. See P erryTorre s v . D e p’ t of Sta te , 404 F. Supp. 2d 140, 142 (D.D .C. 2005).9

Congr ess ena cted F OIA for the purpose of introducingtranspar ency to gove rnment activities. See Ste rn v. Fed. B ureau of Inve stigati on , 7 37 F .2 d 8 4, 88 (D .C. Cir . 1 98 4) . Co ng re ss
rema ined sensitive, howeve r, to the nee d to achieve balanc e betwe en this objective a nd the
vu lne ra bil ity of “ le g iti mate g ov e rnme nta l and pr ivate int e re sts [that] c ou ld b e ha rm e d b y re le a se of ce rtain ty

pes of infor

mation.” Criti cal Mass Energy Project v. Nuc lear Regulatory Comm’n , 97 5 F .2 d 8 71 , 8 72 (D .C. Cir . 1 99 2) ; see also Summe rs v. Dep’ t of Justice , 140 F.3d 1077, 1079 (D.C. Cir. 1998). Ac cording ly , FOIA provides nine e x emptions pursuant to which an a g ency may withhold requested inf

ormation. See 5 U .S. C. § § 5 52 (a )( 4) (B ), (b )( 1) -( 9) . T he a g e nc y mus t demonstrate the validity

of any exemption t hat it asserts. See id. ; Bec k v. D ep’t of Justice , 997 F.2d 1489, 1491 ( D.C. Cir. 1993) (“Consistent with the purpose of the Act, the bur den is on the ag ency to justi fy withholding re quested doc uments.”) In addition, summary judgme nt may

be g rante d on the basis of the a g ency ’s ac company ing a ffidavits or de clar ations if they descr ibe “the justifications for nondisclosure w ith reasona bly specific detail, demonstrate that the information withheld logic ally

falls within the claimed e x emption, and ar e not controve rted by either c ontrary evidenc e in the re cord nor evidenc e of a g ency

bad fa ith.” Military Audit Project v. Casey , 656 F.2d 724, 738 ( D.C. Cir. 1981). These a ffidavits may be submitted by

an off icial who coordinated the sea

rch, a nd need not be from ea ch individual who par ticipated in the sea

rch. See SafeCard Servs. v. Se c. &Exc h. Comm’n , 926 F.2d 1197, 1200 ( D.C. Cir. 1991). Where the adequa cy of the sea

rch is in doubt, the ag ency “must show beyond materia l doubt . . . that it has conducte d a sea

rch r easona

bly calc ulated to uncove r all re levant docume nts.” W e isb e rg , 705 F.2d at 1351. But “[t] here is no require ment that an ag ency sear ch eve ry

rec ord sy stem.” Oglesby v . U.S. Dep’ t of the Army , 920 F.2d 57, 68 ( D.C. Cir. 1990).10

An ag ency

also has the bur den of de tailing what proportion of the infor mation in a document is non-exempt and how that mater ial is dispersed throug hout the document. Mead Data Cent., Inc. v . U.S. Dep’ t of the Air Force , 566 F.2d 242, 261 ( D.C. Cir. 1977). Anynonexempt information that is reasonably seg reg able f

rom the re quested re cords must be disclosed. Oglesby v . U.S. Dep’ t of the Army , 79 F.3d 1172, 1178 ( D.C. Cir. 1996). In addition, district
c ourt s are ob lig ate d to c on sid e r s e g re g a bil ity iss ue s su a s

po nteeven when the pa

rties have not specific ally

raised suc h claims. Trans-Pac. Policing Agree ment v. U .S. Customs Serv. , 177 F.3d 1022, 1028 (D.C. Cir. 1999). III . D ISC USS ION In consideringDef

endant’ s motion for summary judgme nt, the Court shall address the adequa cy of the a g ency ’s sea

rche s for re cords a

nd the exemptions i nvoked, as w ell as any seg reg ability

issues that arise. A. Adequac

y of Searc h for Records USAI D ar g ues that it has ade quately sear ched f

or re cords r esponsive to Schmidt’s three F OIA r e qu e sts . “ To wi n s umm ary jud g me nt o n th e a de qu a c y of a se arc h, the a g e nc y

mus t de mon str ate be y on d mate ri a l do ub t th at it s se arc h w a s ‘ re a so na bly c a lc ulate d to un c ov e r a ll rele vant documents.’” Nation Magazine v. U.S. Customs Serv. , 71 F.3d 885, 890 ( D.C. Cir. 1 9 9 5 ) ( qu o t i n g Tru itt

v . D e p’ t of Sta te , 897 F.2d 540, 542 ( D.C. Cir. 1990)). To mee t its burden, the ag ency

may submit affidavits or dec larations that ex plain in rea sonable de tail and in a nonconclusory

fashion the sc ope and me thod of the ag ency ’s sea rch. Perry v . Block, 684 F.2d 121, 12 6 ( D. C. C ir . 1 98 2) . T he a g e nc y mus t sh owthat it

ma de a “ g oo d f a ithe ff or t to c on du c t a
sear ch for the re quested re cords, usingmethods which ca n be re asonably

expected to produc e the11

information re quested.” Oglesby , 9 20 F .2 d at 68 ; see also Campbell v. U .S. Dep’ t of Justice , 164 F.3d 20, 27 ( D.C. Cir. 1998). In the abse nce of contra ry evidenc e, such a ffidavits or de clar ations
are sufficie nt to demonstrate an a g ency ’s compliance with FOIA. Pe rry , 684 F.2d at 127. A
sear ch nee d not be exhaustive, Mi lle r v . U .S . D e p’ t of Sta te , 779 F.2d 1378, 1383 ( 8th Cir. 1995), and the a dequac y

of the sea

rch is not deter

mined by its results, but by

the method of the se arc h itself, W eisberg v. U

.S. Dep’ t of Justice , 745 F.2d 1476, 1485 ( D.C. Cir. 1984). An ag ency ’s failure to find a par

ticular doc ument does not nec essar ily indicate that its sear ch wa s inadequate. W ilbur v. CIA , 3 55 F .3 d 6 75 , 6 78 (D .C. Cir . 2 00 4) ; Nation Magazine , 71 F.3d at 892 n.7. To pr ov e the a de qu a c y

of its se arc h, USA I D h a s p ro du c e d a de c laratio n f

ro m Sylvi a L ank fo rd , a

Pub lic Af

fa ir s Sp e c ia lis t in

the a g e nc y ’s Inf

or matio n a nd Re c or ds Di vis ion

wh o is responsible for

maintaining the FOIA files for reque sts processe d in her off ice a nd coordinating response s to FOIA re quests. See L ankfor d Dec l. ¶¶ 1-2. U SAI D has a lso produced a decla ration from Amitabh Kha

rdori, an a

ttorney in the USAI D Off

ice of the Gene ral Counsel who re viewed emails obtained through a for ensic sea rch f or any rec ords re sponsive to Schmidt’s requests. See Khar dori Dec l. ¶¶ 2, 8. The ir dec larations indi cate that the ag ency sear ched f

ive diffe rent USA I D o ff

ic e s f or re c or ds re sp on siv e to S c hmi dt’ s thre e F OIA r e qu e sts , in c lud inga fo re ns ic
sear ch for emails that may

be re sponsive. The sea

rche s were targ eted by

key phrase s that
corr elated to the substanc e of Schmidt’s re quests. The de clar ations are relatively detailed a

nd not conclusory

in nature. Schmidt argues that the a g ency ’s sea rch w as not ade quate be cause it did not t urn up eve ry
rec ord that Schmidt believes to existand wa s conducte d in bad fa ith. See Pl.’s Mot. ¶¶ 3, 8. Howeve r; “the f

ocus of the a dequac y

inquiry is not on the results.” Hornbostel v. U.S. De p’t of12

Interior , 3 05 F . Su

pp . 2 d 2 1, 28 (D .D .C. 20 03 ). Th e fa c t th at ot he r r e sp on siv e re c or ds may e xist does not rende r a se arc h inadequate. Perry v . Block, 684 F.2d at 128 (“The issue is not whether any further documents mig ht conce ivably exis t but rather whether

the g overnme nt’s sear ch for responsive doc uments was ade quate.” ) As for bad fa ith, Schmidt ’s alleg ations are conclusory and unsupported by

evidenc e in the re cord. “ Ag ency aff idavits are a ccor ded a pr esumption of g ood faith, which c annot be r ebutted by ‘pure ly speculative claims about the e x istence a nd discovera bility of other doc uments.’” Sa fe Car d S e rv s. , 9 2 6 F. 2 d

at1 2 0 0 (qu o t i n g Ground Sauce r W atch, Inc . v. CIA , 692 F.2d 770, 771 ( D.C. Cir. 1981)). Sc hmi dt a lso argue s th at th e a g e nc y sh ou ld n ot h ave re

je c te d h is l a st two re qu e sts in September 2008 a s vague or ove rbroa d. When an ag ency is face d with a vague re quest, it “may construe the reque st as it reasona bly sees f it, as long a s it informs the reque ster of the define d scope of the re quest.” Hamilton Sec. Group I nc. v. D ep’t of Hous. &Urban Dev

. , 106 F. Supp. 2 d 2 3 , 3 3 (D
. D. C
. 2 0 0 0 ) ( ci t i n g Dettman v. U .S. Dep’ t of Justice , 802 F.2d 1472, 1476 ( D.C. Cir. 1986)). Schmidt admits that USAI D informed him of his nee d to provide more disc rete sear ch para meters. See [24] Pl.’s Opp’n ¶ 7. Schmidt claims that USAI D did not allow him the opportunity

to refine his request, but he c ites no evidenc e that he e ver attempted to do so. See id. ; [ 24] P l.’s Stmt . ¶ 44. Schmidt does not claim, and the r ecor d does not sug g est, that the ag ency ever reje cted a

narr owed r equest. “ An ag ency need not honor

a re quest that requir es ‘a n
unrea sonably

burdensome se arc h.’” Am. Fed’n of Gov’t Employ ees, Local 2782 v . U.S. Dep’ t of Commerce , 9 0 7 F. 2 d

2 0 3 , 2 0 9 (D
. C
. C i r. 1 9 9 0 ) ( qu o t i n g Goland v. CIA , 607 F. 2d 339, 353 (D.C. Cir. 1978)). It is clear that Schmidt’s final two requests—see king “ [a] ny information” produce d by

USAI D since 1995 r eg arding“possible violations of FAR 16.505” —would requireSchmidt has attache d numerous exhibits to his briefingpurportedly showing how the 9 ag ency could have sear ched f

or docume nts relatingto his last two FOIA re quests. Howeve r, an ag ency is not required to “ look beyond the four c orner s of the re quest for le ads to the location of responsive doc uments.” Kowalczyk v. D ep’t of Justice , 73 F.3d 386, 389 ( D.C. Cir. 1996). 13 the ag ency

to “locate , revie w, re dact, a nd arr ang e for

inspection of a va st quantity of mater ial.” See id. In a dd iti on , th e a g e nc y wo uld ne e d to make a

c omp lic ate d ju dg me nt c a ll i n o rd e r t o deter mine what re cords mig ht indicate a “ possible violation” of fair opportunity

provisions. There fore , the Court finds that the ag ency was justified in desig natingSchmidt’s last two reque sts as vague and ove rbroa d. 9 Schmidt also argues that the a g ency ’s sea rch w as inade quate be cause it did not i nclude a revie w of e lectronic back- up tapes that may contain re sponsive emails. See Pl.’s Mot., ¶ 13; P l.’s [24] Opp’n ¶ 10. A lthough ther e is no requir ement that an a g ency sear ch eve ry

rec ord sy stem, an ag ency must searc h ever

y rec ord sy stem that is likely to turn up the information re quested. Oglesby , 920 F.2d at 68. The ag ency ’s dec larations do not i ndicate whether back- up tapes we re included as pa

rt of the “ fore nsic” sea

rch f or ema ils. Bec ause Schmidt specif ically reque sted that ba c k- up ta

pe s b e se arc he d a s p art

of his Ma y 20 08 re qu e st, USA I D mus t, at th e ve ry le a st,
e xpla in whe the r o r n ot s uc h b a c k- up ta pe s e xist, we re se arc he d, or we re lik e ly

to c on ta in responsive r ecor ds. See id. (“ At the ve ry le a st, [the a g e nc y ] wa s r e qu ir e d to e xpla in i n it s aff idavit that no other re cord sy stem was likely to produce responsive doc uments.”) The
a g e nc y ’s de c laratio ns do no t c on ta in a ve rm e nts that a ll r e c or d s y ste ms l ike ly to c on ta in responsive doc uments were sear ched. I n addition, Schmidt contends that the ag ency should have
sear ched the Offic e of the Inspector G ener al, the Of fice of F inancial Ma

nag ement, and the Offic e of the Ge nera l Counsel for re sponsive rec ords. See [24] Pl.’s St mt. ¶ 59. The ag ency ’s14

de c laratio ns do no t ave r t hat th e fi ve of

fi c e s se arc he d w e re the on ly of fi c e s li ke ly

to c on ta in responsive infor

mation. Accor dingly , the Court cannot de termine, ba sed on the pre sent rec ord, whether or not USAI D’s sea

rch w as ade quate, a

nd the ag ency

is not entitl ed to summary judgme nt on this i ssue. Schmidt argues that he is entitled to summary judgme nt beca

use USAI D has a dmitted that it failed to sear ch for emails from a ll the employ ees whose re cords we re r equeste d. See [24] Pl.’s St mt. ¶ 5. The L ankfor d Dec laration ex plains that the Off ice of the Chief Information Offic er w as not able to a cce ss email acc ounts for ce rtain employ ees who had lef t the ag ency . See L ank fo rd De c l. ¶ 17 . I f b a c k- up ta

pe s c on ta ini ngthe se e mpl oye e s’ e ma ils e xist a nd are wi thi n the control of U SAI D, then Schmidt may be entitled to summary

judgme nt on this i ssue. Howeve r, if the a g ency

does not have acc ess to these tape s, then it will be entitled to summ ary judgme nt. Se e Sa

fe Car d S e rv s. , 926 F.2d at 1201 (“[T]he [ ag ency] i s not require d to rec reate or to rea cquire a docume nt that it no longer has.”) On the cur

rent re cord, how ever , Schmidt is not entitled to summary

judgme nt beca

use he ha s not shown based on undisputed fa cts that USAI D’s
sear ch wa s inadequate as a matter of la

w. Ther efor e, the Court shall deny both parties’ motions for summary

judgme nt without prejudice a s to the adequa cy of the sea

rch. Be cause “F OIA ca ses ar e ty pically and appr opriately

decide d on motions for summary judgme nt,” Mo or e v . B us h , 601 F. Supp. 2d 6, 12 (D.D .C. 2009), the Court shall permit the pa rt ie s to fi le re ne we d mo tio ns fo r s umm ary jud g me nt a ft e r t

he a g e nc y ha s h a d a n o pp or tun ity to supplement the re cord w ith new dec larations. See North v. U.S. D ep’t of Justice , 658 F. Supp. 2d 163, 176 (D.D.C. 2009) ( allowingparties to re file motions for summary judgme nt where rec ord
was unc lear

as to the ade quacy

of the a g ency ’s sea

rch)
.15

B. Applicability of FOIA Exe mptions 5 and 6 D e f e n d an ta r g u e s th ati th a s p r o p e r l y

w i th h e l d o r r e d a c t e d i n f o r m at i o np ur s u an tt o F O IA Ex emptions 5 and 6. Exempti on 5 protec ts “inter-a g ency or intra- ag ency

memorandums or letters which w ould not be available by law to a pa

rty other than a

n ag ency in liti g ation with the ag ency .” 5 U.S.C. § 522(b)(5) . Ex emption 5 applies to materials that would be privileg ed in the civil discovery

context, such as materia ls protected by the deliber ative proc ess privileg e, the attorney -client privileg e, and the attorney work-pr oduct privileg e. See NLRB v. Se ars, Roebuck &Co. , 421 U.S. 132, 149 (1975). In order to “justify

nondisclosure unde r Exemption 5, an
a g e nc y mus t sh owthat th e ty

pe of mate ri a l it

se e ks to w ithho ld i s g e ne ra lly pr ote c te d in

c ivi l discovery for r easons similar to those asse rted by the ag ency

in the FOIA context.” Burka v. U .S. De p’ t of He alt h &Hu ma n S

e rv s. , 8 7 F .3 d 5 08 , 5 17 (D .C. Cir . 1 99 6) . E xemp tio n 6 pr ote c ts information about individuals in “personne l and medica l files and similar files the disclosure of wh ic h w ou ld c on sti tut e a c le arl y unwa rr ante d inva sio n o f p e rs on a l pr iva c y .” 5 U .S. C. § 522(b)( 6). The te rm “similar files” is construed broa dly and is “intende d to cover detailed Gover nment rec ords on an individual which c an be ide ntified as apply ing to that individual.” U.S. Dep’ t of State v. W

ash. Post Co. , 456 U.S. 595, 602 (1982) (c itation omit ted). “ The thr e sh old is f a ir ly min ima l, s uc h th at a ll i nf or matio n whic h a

pp lie s to a

pa rt ic ula r i nd ivi du a l is
cover ed by

Ex emption 6, reg ardle ss of the ty pe of f ile in which it is contained.” Conception v. FBI , 606 F. Supp. 2d 14, 35 (D.D .C. 2009) (citations and inter nal quotation marks omitted). “Ultimately , an ag ency ’s justification for invokinga F OIA exemption is sufficie nt if it appear s logic al or plausible.” Lar so n v . D e p’ t of Sta te , 565 F.3d 857, 862 ( D.C. Cir. 2009) (citation omitted).In Vaughn v. Rose n , 484 F.2d 820 ( D.C. Cir. 1973), the D.C. Circuit held that ag encie s 10 should prepar e an itemized index correlating e ach w ithheld document (or por tion thereof) with a specific FOIA exemption and the ag ency ’s justification for nondisclosure
. See 484 F.2d at 827. 16 In support of its argument that it has proper ly invoked Exempti on 5, Def endant r elies on the L ankfor d Dec laration and a Vaughn index that it has attache d to its reply brief. See 10 L ankfor d Dec l. ¶ 12; Def.’ s Reply , Ex . 1 ( Vaughn index). Toge ther, these documents desc ribe
eac h of the doc uments that were withheld or re dacte d based on Exemption 5 and specify the basis for the le g al privileg e that justifies their exemption. The index demonstrates that 36 d o c u m e n t s c o n t a i n e d

r e d a c t i o n s o r

w e r e w i th h e l d

e n t i r e l y o nth e b a s i s o f

e i th e r th e at t o r n e yc lie nt o r atto rn e y

wo rk -p ro du c t pr ivi le g e . T he ind e x ide nti fi e s th e date of e a c h d oc ume nt, its author, its rec ipient, and subject matter ; eac h document is a c ommunication with someone in the USAI D Off

ice of the Gene ral Counsel. Only four doc uments—all draf t settlement ag ree ments—were withheld in their entirety
. See Def .’s Reply , Ex . 1 at 5-6. This evide nce clea rly shows that the documents withheld or r edac ted constitute leg al advice or communications with ag ency

counsel re g ardingeither Schmidt’s leg al proc eeding s or the ag ency ’s use of I raq funds. Thus, the ag ency

had a r easona

ble basis for w ithholding or re dactinginformation base d on the attorne y -client a

nd attorney

work-pr oduct privileg es pursua nt to Ex emption 5. Wit h respe ct to Ex emption 6, the L ankfor d Dec laration ex plains that two ty pes of information wer e re dacte d from re cords: home tele phone number s of USAI D employ ees a nd the identities of USAI D employ ees unr elated to Schmidt’s re quests. See Lan k f o r d D e c l
. ¶ 1 1
. In consideringwhether

an ag ency

has prope rly

invoked Exempti on 6, courts must balanc e the privac y interest in nondisclosure a g ainst the public interest in the re lease of the infor mation. Lepelletier v. FD

IC , 164 F.3d 37, 46 ( D.C. Cir. 1999). This Court ag ree s with the ag ency that17

the re daction of e mploy ees’ home telephone numbers ser ves the priva cy

interests that Exemption 6 is designe d to serve. See Kidd v. D ep’t of Justice , 362 F. Supp. 2d 291, 296-97 (D .D.C. 2005) (h old ingthat a g e nc y

pr op e rl y wi thh e ld e mpl oye e ’s ho me te le ph on e numbe r p ur su ant t o Ex emption 6). The Court also a g ree s that reda ctingthe names of employ ees who wer e not inv olv e d in

the matte rs ra ise d b y

Sc hmi dt i s p ro te c te d und e r E xemp tio n 6 , a s th e pu bli c ha s li ttl e interest in the disclosure of such individuals’ identities. See J udicial W atch, Inc . v. Food &Drug Admin. , 449 F.3d 141, 153 ( D.C. Cir. 2006) (appr oving r edac tion of employ ee na mes under Ex emption 6 where public interest in disclosure is unce rtain). Ac cording ly , the Court finds that the ag ency

has prope rly

invoked Exempti on 6. There fore , the Court shall g rant De fenda nt’s motion for summary

judgme nt with respec t to its application of FOIA Exempti ons 5 and 6. C. Se gr e ga bil ity F OIA r e qu ir e s th at “ [a]ny re a so na bly se g re g a ble po rt ion

of a re c or d s ha ll b e pr ov ide d to
any pe rs on re qu e sti ngsu c h r e c or d a ft e r d e le tio n o f t he po rt ion s w hic h a

re e xemp t.” 5 U .S. C. § 552(b). The Court is required to make a findingas to the segreg ability of withheld docume nts. Morley v . CIA , 508 F.3d 1108, 1123 ( D.C. Cir. 2007). The L ankfor d Dec laration and the Vaughn index fil ed by

Def endant de monstrate that only information per

taining to a

valid exemption was
re da c te d, and

on ly fo ur do c ume nts c on sis tin ge nti re ly of pr ivi le g e d in fo rm atio n w e re wi thh e ld i n the ir e nti re ty . T hu s, De fe nd ant h a s sh own w ith“ re a so na ble sp e c if ic ity” that th e do c ume nts cannot be further

seg reg ated. See A rmstrong v. Exe c. Office of the President , 97 F.3d 575, 578 (D.C. Cir. 1996). The Court ther efor e finds that the a g ency has satisfied its obligation under F OIA t o p ro vid e re a so na

bly se g re g a ble po rt ion s o f t

he re c or ds to S c hmi dt.18

D. Tim e lin ess Sc hmi dt a rgue s th at he sh ou ld b e e nti tle d to re lie f b e c a us e USA I D w a s n ot t ime ly in i ts production of doc uments in response to his reque sts. However , “a la ck of timeliness or compliance with FOIA dea dlines does not prec lude summary judgme nt for an a g ency , nor mandate summar

y judgme nt for the r equeste r.” Landmark Legal Found. v. EPA , 272 F. Supp. 2d 5 9 , 6 8 ( D
. D
. C
. 2 0 0 3 )
. “ [ O ] n c e th e C o urtd e t e r m i n e s th atth e a g e n c y h a s , ‘ h o w e v e r b e l at e d l y, rele ased a ll nonex empt materia l, [ it has] no further judicial func tion to perform unde r the F OIA.” Mu ha mm ad

v . U .S . Cu sto ms &Bo rd

e r Pro t. , 5 5 9 F. S u

p p . 2 d 5 , 7 (qu o t i n g Perry v . Block, 684 F.2d 121, 125 ( D.C. Cir. 1982)). More over, to the e x tent that Schmidt seeks as a sa nction monetary relief such as a fee waiver , his claim is not authoriz ed by FOIA. See 5 U .S. C. § 552(a) (4)( B) (statingthat fede ral c ourts have jur isdiction only to “enjoin the ag ency

from wi thh old inga g e nc y

re c or ds and

to o rd e r t he pr od uc tio n o f a

ny a g e nc y re c or ds imp ro pe rl y wi thh e ld .
. . .” ). Th e re fo re , Sc hmi dt i s n ot e nti tle d to sa nc tio ns a s a

re me dy fo r t he un tim e lin e ss of USA I D’ s r e sp on se s. E. Allegations of Possi ble Misconduc t On July 1, 20 09 , Sc hmi dt f

ile d a [28] N oti c e Re g ard ingAl le g atio ns of Pos sib le Def endant Misconduc t. I n this Notice, Schmidt alleg es that De fenda nt’s counsel ha s violated rules of pr ofessional c onduct and other wise ac ted improperly

by admonishing Schmidt for violating the L ocal Rules of this Court. Howeve r, pro se lit ig ants are e xpe c te d to c omp ly wi th the L ocal Rules of this Court, see Slov inec v . Am. Univ. , 5 20 F . Su pp . 2 d 1 07 , 1 10 -1 1 ( D. D. C. 20 07 ), and

it i s n ot i mpr op e r f

or De fe nd ant’ s c ouns e l to op po se fi lin g s th at are no t in
c omp lia nc e . T he re fo re , th e Court fi nd s th at Sc hmi dt’ s a lle g atio ns have no me ri t.19 IV . C ON CL USI ON For the re asons explained above, the Court shall GRANT Plaintiff’s [26] /[ 27] Mot ion Requestingthe Court’s Permission and Acc eptanc e of F ilings that De viate fr om L ocal Rule 7(h)
and 7( e ). Th e Court

sh a ll G RA

NT -I N- PAR T a

nd DENY -I N- PAR T WI TH OU T PREJUD I CE Def endant’ s [16] Motion for Summary J udg ment, g rantingthe motion as to all issues ex cept the adequa cy of the sea

rch r eg ardingelec tronic bac k-up tape s and re cords in the Of fice of the Ins pe c tor Ge ne ra l, t

he Of fi c e of F ina nc ia l Ma na g e me nt, or

the Of fi c e of the Ge ne ra l Co un se l, with respec t to which the motion shall be denied without prejudice . The Court shall also DENY Pla int if f’ s [19 ] Con str

ue d M oti on

fo r S umm ary

Judg me nt, de nyingwi tho ut p re jud ic e wi th
re sp e c t to the a de qu a c y

of the se arc h a s d e sc ri be d a bo ve . T he Court

sh a ll p e rm it the pa

rt ie s to file re newe d motions for summary judgme nt on this l imited issue based on a suppleme nted
rec ord. An a

ppropriate Orde r ac companies this Memora ndum Opinion.

Date: Marc h 18, 2010 /s/ C O LLE E N K O LLA R
- K O T E LLY Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge