EDI TH M. B UDI K, M.D.,

Plaintiff,

v. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Def endant. UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT

F OR THE DIS TRICT OF COLUM BIA

Civil Action No. 09-01518 ( CKK)

MEMORAN DUM OP INION (September

30, 2010) In this action broug ht pro se under the Fr eedom of Information Ac t (“F OIA”) , 5 U.S.C. § 552, Plaintiff Edith M. Budik, M.D. (“Plaintiff” ) cha lleng es the re sponses of De fenda nt Depa rtment of the Ar

my (“D efe ndant”) to her re quests for infor mation relatingto her for mer employ ment at L andstuhl Reg ional Medica l Center (“ L RMC”). Specifica lly , at issue in this action ar e two sepa

rate FOIA re quests lodge d by Plaintiff with Defe ndant in August and September 2008. Initially , Plaintiff sought a single document re lating to he r per formanc e while 1 employ ed at LRMC. Defenda nt produce d the document, in re dacte d form, and Plaintiff now challeng es only

the proprie ty

of De fenda

nt’s reda ctions. Subsequently , Plaintiff made a br oader reque st for her

personne l rec ords. Def

endant c onducted a

sear ch for

responsive materials, ultimately

producinga number

of docume nts; a subset of these doc uments were reda cted a nd

In the months that followed, Plaintiff would occa sionally amend or clar ify her r equests 1 in cer tain respe cts. In eac h instance, D efe ndant incorpor ated Plaintiff’s amendments into the scope of its searc h for r esponsive docume nts, and the ef fec t of the ame ndments and cla rifications is not in di spute in this action. Accor dingly , for pur poses of c larity , the Court will sim ply ref er to Plaintiff’s “first F OIA re quest” a nd “sec ond FOIA re quest,” mindful that a more fulsome treatment may

very well be a ppropriate in other conte x ts.others we re w ithheld in their entirety . Construing Plaintiff’s submissions li bera lly , Plaintiff here

challeng es both the ade quacy and g ood faith of De fenda nt’s sear ch, as w ell as the propr iety of Def endant’ s decision to reda ct and withhold var ious documents. Presently befor e the Court is Def endant’ s [9] Motion for Summary J udg ment, which Plaintiff has opposed. A fter r eviewing the par ties’ submissions, i ncludingthe attac hments thereto, the r eleva nt authorities, and the

rec ord as a

whole, the Court shall GRANT- I N-PART and DEN Y-I

N-PART Def

endant’ s Motion for Summary

J udg ment, for the r easons se t forth below. I. BACKG ROUND A. Factual Back

ground

2 1. Plaintiff’s First Reque st: The Professional Prac tice Eva luation On August 13, 2008, Pl aintiff conta cted L RMC – where she was e mploy ed for a per iod of time in 2008 – requestingthe produc tion of a “doc ument written on [her] behalf a nd faxed on 30 J une 2008 for

a position at Dartmouth Hitchcoc k Medica l Center.” D ef.’ s Stm t. ¶ 3. Plaintiff’s reque st was forw arde d to Ralph G. Eng land, a F OIA Off icer responsible for

handlingcer

tain information re quests filed with L RMC. Id. ¶ 4; Eng land Dec l. ¶ 1. Shortly there afte r, Mr. Eng land per sonally

obtained a c opy

of the thre e-pa g e docume nt refe renc ed in Plaintiff’s re quest – a Profe ssional Practice Evaluation (“ PPE”) – from the of fice of Col. Steven Princiotta, the

The Court obser

ves that Plaintiff was infor med of the r equire ments of Fe d. R. Civ. P

. 2 56 in the Court’s Fox/Neal Orde r. See Oct. 19, 2009 Or der, D ocket No. [10]. Thus, notwithstanding the pr inciple that a pro selitigant’s submissions are to be liberally construed, the Court may

acc ept as true the uncha lleng ed fa ctual asse rtions in Defe ndant’s Statement of Materia l Fac ts Not in Dispute (“De f.’s Stmt.”), Docke t No. [9-2] . Neve rtheless, in an e x erc ise of its discretion, the Court has independe ntly revie wed the e ntire re cord to c onfirm that there is adequate support for D efe ndant’s submissions. The Court will also refer to Plainti ff’ s Rebuttal to Defe ndant’s Motion for Summary J udg ment (“Pl.’s Stmt.”), Docke t No. [11] , wher e appropr iate. 2Deputy

Commander for

Clini cal Ser

vices at L RMC. England De cl. ¶ 5. Mr. Eng land sent Plaintiff a copy

of the re quested PPE on September 3, 2008, a lbeit reda cting the sig nature block and the e -mail addre ss from the fina l pag e of the document pursua nt to FOIA Exempti on (b)( 6). Def .’s Stmt. ¶ 6. Dissatisfied, Plaintiff subsequently reque sted an unre dacte d version of the PPE. Id. ¶¶ 7- 8. Plaintiff’s follow-up re quest was f orwa rded to the F OIA Off

ice f or U.S. Army

Medica l Command (“MEDCOM”) for f urther r eview. Id. ¶¶ 9- 10. Upon re viewingthe re cord,

3 MEDCOM deter

mined that the sig nature block was “ rele asable ,” but conc urre d that the e- mail addre ss appea

ringon the final pa g e had be en prope rly reda cted pur suant to Ex emption (b)(6)

. Id. ¶ 12. Ac cording ly , on October 30, 2008, Def

endant r elea sed to Plaintiff the contents of the signature block. Id. Although Plaintiff wa s informed that she c ould further appea l the deter mination, no appeal ha s been r ece ived. Id. 4 2. Plaintiff’s Second Reque st: P ersonne l Records On September

8, 2008, Plaintiff contacte d Mr. Eng land with a sec ond FOIA re quest, this time seeking“a c opy

of [her] complete per sonnel file, i.e. a copy of any and all re cords r elated to [her] employ

ment at [L RMC] to include documents, c omputer files, a nd [e] -mails.” Id. ¶ 13.

The Court notes that De fenda nt’s submissi ons, apar

t from spec ifying that Defe ndant is 3 a compone nt of the De partment of D efe nse, har dly illumi nate the r elationship betwee n the various units involved in respondingto Plainti ff’ s reque sts for information. While a complete understandingof those re lationships is ultimately unnece ssary

for pur poses of de ciding the prese nt motion, Defenda

nt would do well to consider includingsuch information in future submissi ons, if any

. On more tha

n one occ asion, the re cord sug g ests that Plaintiff neg lected to f ormally 4 appea l cer

tain aspec ts of Def

endant’ s response to he r re quests. Howeve r, bec ause D efe ndant has not argued that summary

judgme nt is appropriate based on Plaintiff’s f ailure to e x haust her administrative re medies, the Court does not addr ess the issue her e. 3Mr. Eng land promptly rea ched out to Plaintiff, askingher to provide any additional information that would assist in locating the reque sted documents and r equestingclar ification as to whe ther Plaintiff sought e -mails maintained outside her personne l file. Id. ¶¶ 13- 14; Eng land Dec l. ¶¶ 11- 12 and Ex. I . After

further dialog ue ensue d betwee n Plaintiff and Mr. Eng land, Def .’s Stmt. ¶¶ 14-16, Plaintiff’s sec ond FOIA re quest, in its final form, soug ht “a c opy of [her] complete personne l rec ords to include any and all docume nts and rec ords re lated to [her] employ ment at [L RMC] , to include documents, c omputer files, [f]ax es, and a ny [e] -mails in these re cords.” Eng land Dec l. Ex . L . By its terms, the reque st ex tended to “r ecor ds housed in the per sonnel section, [her] duty

section (r adiolog y

), and a ny and all docume nts from Dr. [Br ian] L ein and Dr

. [S teven] Princiotta.” Id. 5

a. Def

endant’ s I nitial Search Mr. Eng land coor dinated the se arc h for doc uments responsive to Plaintiff’s sec ond FOIA reque st. Def.’ s Stm t. ¶¶ 13-21. In so doing, he contac ted the Commander of L RMC, t he De puty Commander for

Clini cal Ser

vices, Patholog y , the Radiolog y Depa rtment, the Personne l Division, Oper ations, Credentials, and the former Chief of Radiology

reque sting infor

mation pursuant to Plaintiff’s reque st. Id. ¶ 18; Eng land Dec l. ¶ 13. After lear ning that no one then wor king a t L RMC’s Radiology

Depa rtment had a

ny knowledg e of e x isting re cords r elatingto Plainti ff, Mr. E ng land re ache d out to Pl aintiff’s f ormer supervisor, Col. Ricanthony Ashley , inquiring whether the Radiolog y

Depa rtment maintained a file for Plaintiff. Def.’ s Stm t. ¶ 17; Eng land Dec l. ¶¶ 18-19. A lthough Col. Ashley indicated that

In addition, while Def

endant’ s sear ch for

responsive doc uments was ong oing, Plaintiff 5 wrote Mr . Eng land re aff

irming that her re quest extended to rec ords maintained by L RMC Radiology

and Dr s. L ein and Princiotta. Eng land Dec l. Ex . O. 4“a ve ry

small file” had onc e existed, after speakingdirec tly

with Col. Ashley , the Chief of Radiology

conducte d a fur

ther sea rch of the Radiolog y

Depa rtment, but was unable to find any documents re lating to Plaintiff. Id. Ultimately , Mr. Eng land was a ble to retrie ve one hundr ed and thirty -two (132) pag es of documents re sponsive to Plainti ff’ s reque sts. Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 17; Eng land Dec l. ¶ 20. These 132 pag es comprise d the only documents maintained by L RMC t hat wer e re sponsive to Plainti ff’ s reque st. Id. b. The L RMC Documents Of the 132 pa g es located duringthe cour se of De fenda nt’s sear ch, 108 “be longe d” to L RMC, i n the sense that the documents did not orig inate fr om other units. Eng land Dec l. ¶ 20. On Novembe r 20, 2008, De fenda nt relea sed to Plaintiff all 108 pag es, which inc luded Off icer Evaluation Reports, Plaintiff’s orde rs, memora nda, a le tter of r eprimand, a rebuttal to the repr imand, and var ious e-mails (the “ L RMC Documents”). De f.’s Stmt. ¶ 18. Approxim ately

57 of the 108 pa g es produc ed by Def endant we re r edac ted. Pl.’s St mt. ¶ 6 1; Eng land Dec l. ¶ 21. Some documents wer e re dacte d to remove “ third-par ty persona l information” pur suant to FOIA Exempti on (b)( 6). B uchholz Decl. ¶ 6; Eng land Dec l. ¶ 21;

Whil e De fenda

nt’s submissi ons do not specify the number of

documents re dacte d, 6 Plaintiff aver s that 57 of the 108 pag es produc ed “ha d been r edac ted to the extent that they are blank pag es.” Pl.’s Stmt. ¶ 1. Defe ndant does not direc tly dispute Plainti ff’ s fig ure, e lecting instead to paint Plaintiff’s statement as “ conclusory” to the extent it can be r ead to a lleg e that all 57 pag es we re improperlyreda cted. De f.’s Reply Mem., Docke t No. [12] , ¶ 1. B eca use Def endant ha s failed to put forth a ny evidenc e contr adictingPlaintiff’s fig ure, a nd beca use this Court must afford Plaintiff a c erta in solicitude as the non-movingparty , the Court will acce pt as true for purposes of this motion that otherwise re sponsive information was r edac ted from a total of 57 pag es. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, I nc. , 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986) (a ll underlying f acts and infe renc es ar e ana ly

zed in the light most favora ble to the non-movingparty ). 5Vaug hn-B urfor d Dec l. ¶ 6. Specifica lly , Def endant withheld the na

mes and e -mail addre sses of

cer tain individuals, concluding that the disclosure of such information would threaten the individuals’ privacy

interests. B uchholz Decl. ¶ 18. Y et other r edac tions were ma de to e- mail

corr espondenc e re lating to a n “incident” involving Plaintiff, cor responde nce which purporte dly discussed what the response to that incident would be fr om Plainti ff’ s chain of c ommand. Buc hholz Decl. ¶¶ 11- 12; Eng land Dec l. ¶ 21; Vaug hn-B urfor d Dec l. ¶ 6. Def endant c laims that the e- mail corre spondence conce rningthe incident wa s proper ly reda cted unde r F OIA Exempti on (b)( 5). Id.

c. Plaintiff’s Appea l and Def endant’ s Supplemental Searc h Plaintiff was informe d that she could a ppeal De fenda

nt’s reda ction decisions conc erning the L RMC Documents, a rig ht which Plaintiff exercised on January 6, 2009. Def

.’s Stmt. ¶¶ 18- 20. In a letter

of appe al, Plaintiff argued, amongother thing s, that the information she r equeste d was outside the sc ope of a ny of F OIA’s exemptions, and asserte d “the r ight to know why any exemption [ was] being applied spec ifically in [ her] case .” Eng land Dec l. Ex . V. In addition, Plainti ff noted in he r appe al that there appea red to be a lac k of docume ntation produce d from the pe riod extending fr om May 2008 throug h J une 2008, and r equeste d that Def endant c onduct an a dditional searc h for doc uments orig inating f rom Drs. L ein and Princiotta within that tim e per iod. Id. Upon re ceivingPlaintiff’s appea l, Mr. Eng land aske d Drs. L ein and Princiotta to conduct a f

urther se arc h of their c omputers for a ny e-ma ils pertaining to Plainti ff in the desig nated time per iod. Eng land Dec l. ¶ 28. The suppleme ntal sear ch fa iled to yield any

6additional documents. Def .’s Stmt. ¶ 21; England De cl. ¶ 28. 7 In the meantime, Plaintiff’s a ppeal wa s forwa

rded to Huma

n Resource Command and, there afte r, to the Off

ice of the Gene ral Counsel at the Penta g on. Def .’s Stmt. ¶¶ 23-24. Both office s review ed Plaintiff’s file a nd the documents at issue, and conc urre d that the L RMC Documents ha d been pr operly reda cted. Id. ¶¶ 25, 27- 28. d. The MEDCOM Doc uments As descr ibed above , only 108 of the 132 pa g es located duringthe cour se of De fenda nt’s

sear ch “be longe d” to L RMC. The remainingdocuments we re r efe rre d out to four sepa rate units – MEDCOM, the 21st Theate r Sustainment Comm and (“ 21st TSC ”), the Walter Reed Ar my Medica l Center (“ WR AMC”), a nd United States Army

Europe ( “USAREUR”) – a s the e-ma ils

wer e to or fr om personnel a ssigne d to those units and not L RMC. Of the twenty four ( 24) pag es within this g roup, six (6) we re se nt to MEDCOM for re view (the “MEDCOM Doc uments”). Id. ¶ 29. On Dec ember

23, 2008, following MEDCOM’s re view, De fenda nt relea sed to Plaintiff additional documents re sponsive to Plainti ff’ s second F OIA re quest. Id. ¶ 30. De fenda nt 8

This outcome was unsur prising sinc e, as Plaintiff points out, she completed he r 7 voluntary mobiliz ation at L RMC on March 4, 2008. Pl.’s Stm t. ¶ 6. Plaintiff contends that there is “conflictinginformation” a s to the total number of 8 documents produc ed by

Def endant in re sponse to Plaintiff’s second F OIA re quest. Pl.’s St mt. ¶ 1. The Court agree s. For instanc e, the r ecor d does not indicate howmany of the six page s ref err ed to MEDCOM and the e ight pa g es re fer red to WRAMC were ultimately disclosed to Plaintiff, though it appe ars that at least some pag es we re disclose d from both sets of doc uments. Peterson De cl. ¶¶ 8- 9, 14-15. Althoug h Plaintiff conce des that she r ece ived the 108 pag es of documents produc ed by

Def endant in Nove mber 2008 ( i.e ., the L RMC Documents), she ave rs that she only

rec eived six additi onal pag es there afte r. Pl.’s Stm t. ¶ 1. Ba sed on the re cord be fore it, the Court sim ply

has no wa

y of knowinghow many

pag es we re ultimately

disclosed or fr om which unit they

orig inated. 7withheld and/or re dacte d information pursuant to Exemptions (b)(5) and ( b)(6) , though it is by no

means c lear

from the r ecor d how much information was withheld and/or r edac ted. Id. ; Buc hholz Dec l. ¶ 9; Peterson De cl. ¶¶ 8- 9. As with the L RMC Documents, the names a nd e-ma il addresse s of ce rtain individuals were withheld and/or re dacte d to remove “ third-par ty persona l information” pur suant to Ex emption (b)(6) . Buc hholz Decl. ¶¶ 16, 18. Othe r information was withheld and/or re dacte d from e- mail corre spondence relating to an “ incident” involving Plaintiff, corre spondence which purpor tedly discussed what the response to that incident would be fr om Plainti ff’ s chain of c ommand. Id. ¶¶ 11- 12. 9 Plaintiff was notified that she c ould appea l Defe ndant’s dete rmination relatingto the MEDCOM Documents, a nd Plaintiff exercised that rig ht. Def.’ s Stm t. ¶¶ 30-31. O n J uly 22, 2009, afte r re viewingPlaintiff’s entire f ile and the six page s of documents, the O ffice of the Gene ral Counsel conc urre d in the initial determination. Id. ¶ 34. 1 0

e. The 21st TSC Documents Of the 132 pa g es located duringDef endant’ s sear ch, seve n (7) we re se nt to the 21st TSC for r eview a

nd response (the “ 21st TSC Documents” ). De f.’s Stmt. ¶ 35. The seve n pag es

In a memora

ndum to the Office of Ge nera l Counsel, the MEDCOM FOIA Off icer 9 wrote that at least some of the information withheld from the MED COM Documents included “pre -dec isional discussion pertaining to” Plaintiff amonga non-e x haustive list of individuals, including me mbers of the Staff Judge A dvocate

. SeePeterson De cl. Ex. F at ¶¶ 2- 3. This explanation is not incorpora ted into any

of the swor

n decla rations submitted by

Plaintiff, and the Court shall disreg ard it for purposes of this motion. I n any event, the me morandum does not attempt to corre late the pr offe red e x planation for the claimed e x emption with any specific document or se g ments of documents. I nstead, the state ment rela tes g ener ally

to an undef

ined cate g ory of docume nts, for which D efe ndant has attempted to justi fy its actions with refe renc e to multipl e exemptions. Indeed, the Offic e of G ener al Counsel found that one a dditional e-mail addre ss should 1 0 have be en re dacte d on the re lease d documents. Va ug hn-B urfor d Dec l. Ex . C. 8consisted of e -mails from the 21st TSC mil itary counsel to the Commander of L RMC, as well as

cer tain draf t documents. CraigDec l. ¶ 3; Swope Dec l. ¶¶ 4-5. D efe ndant deter mined that none of the infor

mation was re leasa

ble, and withheld a ll seven pag es citingthe attorne y -client privileg e and the “deliber ative proc ess” pr ivilege under Exemption (b)(5). D ef.’ s Stm t. ¶ 38. Plaintiff was informe d of her rig ht to appeal, but no appe al has be en re ceive d to date. Id. f. The USAREUR Docume nts Of the 132 pa g es located duringDef endant’ s sear ch, thre e (3) wer e initially sent to USAREUR for its review(the “ USAREUR Documents”) . Def .’s Stmt. ¶ 39. However , the documents we re soon f

orwa rded to the 21st TSC after it was confir

med that they

belong ed with that unit. Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 40. The Court ca nnot discern f

rom the re cord the fate of those thre e pag es. 1 1 g . The WRAMC Documents Finally , of the 132 pa g es uncove red dur ing D efe ndant’s sea rch, e ight ( 8) we re r efe rre d to WR AMC for its review . Def .’s Stmt. ¶ 42. Nearly

a y ear later, when it was discove red tha t WR AMC had no re cord of the re fer ral, Mr. Eng land promptly re- sent the docume nts to W RAMC and for war ded them to MEDCOM for a ction. Def .’s Stmt. ¶¶ 43-44. On September 28, 2009, additional documents fr om this group r esponsive to Plaintiff’s sec ond FOIA re quest wer e

One of Def endant’ s decla

rants ave rs that the USAREUR Docume nts were forwa rded 1 1 for r eview in c onjunction with the 21st TSC Documents. L aczy nski Decl. ¶ 5. I f that we re the case , one would expect that the de clar ation from the de cisionmaker r esponsible for r eviewingthe 21st TSC Documents would re fer ence a total of ten pa g es – seve n forwa rded dire ctly

from L RMC t o the 21st TSC and three r outed to the 21st TSC t hroug h USAREUR. Instead, that decla ration re fer ence s only

the seve n pag es orig inally rec eived f

rom L RMC, S wope De cl. ¶ 4, and the Court ca

nnot gle an what happene d to the three pag es of USAREUR Doc uments from the thicket that is Defe ndant’s motion. To the extent they wer e withheld, the r ecor d does not articulate the basis ther efor e with the re quisite specificity

. 9produce d to Plainti ff. Def .’s Stmt. ¶ 45. S ome information wa s withheld and/or re dacte d 1 2 pursuant to Exempti ons (b)(5) and (b) (6), thoug h how much is not entirely clea r. Peterson D ecl. ¶¶ 14- 15. Although Plaintiff wa s informed of he r rig ht of appe al, Def endant ha s not rece ived one. De f.’s Stmt. ¶ 45. 1 3 B. Procedural History Plaintiff commence d this action on Aug ust 12, 2009 by filing a Complaint wit h the Court,

seeCompl., Docket No. [1] , a copy of which w as ser

ved upon De fenda

nt, seeReturn of Serv./Aff ., Docke t No. [5] . On Octobe r 16, 2009, De fenda nt filed its [ 9] Mot ion for Summary J udg ment. SeeNot. of De f.’s Mot. for Summ. J ., Docke t No. [9] ; Def.’ s Mem. of L aw in Supp. of De f.’s Mot. for Summ. J ., Docke t No. [9-1] . Plaintiff, who is appea ring pro se , was notified of her obligation to respond via a Fox/Neal Orde r. SeeOct. 19, 2009 Or der, D ocket No. [10]. On Novembe r 5, 2009, Plaintiff serve d and filed a self-styled “r ebuttal” in opposition to Def endant’ s motion, along with supporting documentation. SeePl.’s Rebuttal to Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J ., Docke t No. [11] . On Novembe r 12, 2009, De fenda nt served a

nd filed a Reply

to Pl.’s Resp. to Defe ndant’s Mot. for Summ. J ., Docke t No. [12] , rende ringthe pre sent motion fully briefe d and ripe for a djudication. The Court has c onsidered e ach of the af oreme ntioned submissi ons, and the a

rguments and authorities set f orth there in, in render ing its dec ision.

Ag ain, Def

endant’ s submissi ons do not indicate how many and what portions of the 1 2 eig ht pag es re fer

red to WRAMC were ultimately disclosed to Plaintiff. Peterson Dec l. ¶¶ 14-15. Apar t from these e ight pa g es, Plaintiff appa rently made a separ ate F OIA re quest to 1 3 WR AMC. Pl.’s S tmt. ¶ 4. The proprie ty of that re quest is not before the Court. Nor doe s the Court rea d Plaintiff’s opposition papers to raise such an issue, a s Plainti ff notes that “the sea rch for r ecor ds at WRAMC is just now gettingunderw ay .” Id. 10II. LEGAL STANDARD

In revie wing motions for summary judgme nt under F OIA, the Court must conduct a de

novo revie w of the r ecor d. See5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4) (B ). In the FO I A context, “ de novo revie w require s [a] 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 .’” Assassinati on Archive s & Researc h Ctr. v. Cent. Intelligence A gency , 334 F.3d 55, 57 ( D.C. Cir. 2003) (quoting Summers v . Dep’ t of Justice , 140 F.3d 1077, 1080 ( D.C. Cir. 1998)). Summary judgme nt is proper whe n “the pleading s, the discover

y [i f any] and disclosure mater ials on file, and a ny aff idavits show that there is no ge nuine issue as to any materia l fac t and that the movant is entitled to judgme nt as a matter of la

w.” F ed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2). A ll underlying f acts a nd infere nces a

re a naly zed in the light most favor able to the non- moving pa rty
. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, I nc. , 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986); see also Steinberg v. U .S. Dep’ t of Justice , 23 F.3d 548, 551 ( D.C. Cir. 1994) (“the ag ency must show, viewing the fac ts in the light most favora ble to the re quester, that there is no g enuine issue of

materia l fac t.”) (c iting W eisberg v. U

.S. Dep’ t of Justice , 745 F.2d 1476, 1485 (D.C. Cir. 1984)). More over, where , as her e, a pa rty is procee ding pro se , the cour t must afford that party ’s pleading s and submissions a “liberal c onstruction.” Robinson v. Attorney Ge n. of U.S. , 534 F. Supp. 2d 72, 76 n.2 (D.D .C. 2008). Congr ess ena cted F OIA for the purpose of introducingtranspar ency into gove rnment activities. See Stern v. Fe d. Bureau of Inv estigation , 737 F.2d 84, 88 ( D.C. Cir. 1984). Congr ess

rema ined sensitive, howeve r, to the nee d to achieve balanc e betwe en this objective a nd the vulnera bility of “le g itimate gove rnmental a nd private inter ests [t hat] could be harme d by rele ase of ce rtain ty

pes of infor

mation.” Criti cal Mass Energy Project v. Nuc lear Regulatory Comm’n ,
11975 F.2d 871, 872 ( D.C. Cir. 1992), cert. de nied , 507 U.S. 984 (1993); accord Summers , 140

F.3d at 1079. For this re ason, F OIA provides nine e x emptions pursuant to which an a g ency may withhold requested inf

ormation. See5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1)- (9). “ Consist ent with the purpose of the Act, the bur den is on the ag ency to justi fy withholding re quested doc uments,” Bec k v. D ep’t of Justice , 997 F.2d 1489, 1491 ( D.C. Cir. 1993), and only afte r an a g ency

has prove n that it has fully discharg ed its obligations is s ummary judgme nt appropria

te, Moore v . Aspin , 916 F. Supp. 32, 35 (D.D.C. 1996) ( citing W eisberg v. U

.S. Dep’ t of Justice , 705 F.2d 1344, 1350 ( D.C. Cir. 1983)). With these principles in mind, the Court turns to the merits of Def endant’ s motion. III. DISCUSS ION A. The Adequac

y of Defe ndant’s Search An inadequate sea

rch f or re cords c onstitut es an imprope r withholding unde r F OIA, see Maydak v. U.S. De

p’t of Justice , 254 F. Supp. 2d 23, 44 (D.D .C. 2003), and thus the threshold question raised by

Plaintiff’s submissi ons is the adequa cy of De fenda

nt’s sear ch for

documents responsive to he r sec ond FOIA re quest – i.e. , documents and r ecor ds relating to Plainti ff’ s employ ment at L RMC. Where the a dequac y of an a g ency ’s sea

rch is cha lleng ed, the a g ency 1 4 “must show beyond materia l doubt . . . that it has conducted a sear ch re asonably

calc ulated to

uncover all rele vant documents.” W eisberg , 705 F.2d at 1351. 1. The Rea sonablene ss of Def endant’ s Searc h In deter mining the a dequac y

of a se arc h, the Court is guide d by principles of

rea sonablene ss. Campbell v. U.S. De p’t of Justice , 164 F.3d 20, 27- 28 (D.C. Cir. 1998); see also

Be cause Def

endant loca

ted and pr oduced the only document sought by

Plaintiff with 1 4 respe ct to her f

irst FOIA re quest, the ade quacy of that sea

rch is not at issue. 12W

eisberg , 705 F.2d at 1351 (“The adequa cy of an a g ency ’s sea

rch is mea sured by

a standa rd of

rea sonablene ss, and is depende nt upon the circ umstances of the ca se.”) (interna l citations and quotation marks omitted). 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 the appropr iateness of the methods used to ca

rry out the sear ch,” Iturralde v. Comptroller of Currency , 315 F.3d 311, 315 ( D.C. Cir. 2003), “the [mere] fac t that a particula r docume nt was not found does not de monstrate the inade quacy of a se arc h,” Boyd v

. Criminal Div. of U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 475 F.3d 381, 391 ( D.C. Cir.) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 1007 (2007). Nor must an ag ency

sear ch eve ry

rec ord sy stem to render

its

sear ch re asonable

. Oglesby v . U.S. Dep’ t of Army , 920 F.2d 57, 68 ( D.C. Cir. 1990); but see Campbell , 164 F.3d at 28 (ag ency cannot limit its sear ch to one r ecor d sy stem where others ar e likely to reve al re sponsive information). In sum, perfe ction is not the standard. I nstead, “ the ag ency must show that it m ade a g ood faith ef

fort to conduc t a sea

rch f or the re quested re cords, using me thods which ca

n be re asonably

expected to produc e the infor mation reque sted.” Oglesby , 920 F.2d at 68. On a motion for summary judgme nt, an ag ency

may discharg e its burden of

establishing the re asonable ness of its sear ch by submitt ing a

“re asonably

detailed a ffidavit” de scribingthe

sear ch per formed a

nd aver ringthat all files likely

to contain re sponsive documents we re

sear ched. Id. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appe als has desc ribed the a g ency ’s evidentiar y burden more fully

as follows: T he aff idavits of the responding ag ency [need not] set forth with meticulou s documentation the details of an epic sear ch for the requested records. Rather, in the absenc e of counter

vailing evidenc e or appar ent inconsistency of proof, aff idavits that explain in rea sonable detail the s cope and method of the sear ch conducte d by the ag ency will suffice to demonstrate compliance with the obligations impo s ed b y the FOIA. 13Perry v . Block, 684 F.2d 121, 127 ( D.C. Cir. 1982). To be suff iciently detailed, the a g ency ’s aff idavits must at a minim um describe “what rec ords wer e sea rche d, by whom, and throug h what proce ss.” Steinberg , 23 F.3d at 552. Her e, De fenda

nt appropriately

relies upon the de clar ation of Mr. Eng land, who wa s responsible for

coordinating the se arc h for doc uments responsive to Plaintiff’s F OIA re quests. See SafeCard Servs., Inc . v. Sec . &Exc h. Comm’n , 926 F.2d 1197, 1201 ( D.C. Cir. 1991) (noting that the individual coordinatingthe sea rch “ is the most appropriate pe rson to provide a compre hensive a ffidavit”) . For at least thre e re asons, the conte nt of that dec laration suffices to discharg e De fenda

nt’s burden. First, Mr. Eng land ave rs that, in conductinghis searc h, he conta cted the Commande r of L RMC, t he De puty

Commander for

Clini cal Ser

vices, Patholog y , the Radiolog y Depa rtment, the Personnel Division, Operations, Credentials, and the f ormer Chief

of Radiolog y

reque sting information pursuant to Plaintiff’s re quest. Def .’s Stmt. ¶ 18; England De cl. ¶ 13. The se sourc es

are prec isely

those that could be “ rea sonably expected” to pr oduce inf ormation responsive to Plaintiff’s reque sts for “pe rsonnel re cords” and “doc uments and re cords r elated to [her] employ ment.” Eng land Dec l. Ex . L

. Second, Mr. Eng land desc ribes in consider able de tail the issues that arose duringthe

course of De fenda

nt’s sear ch, and the reme dial steps that he took to ensure that no responsive documents we re ove rlooked. Spec ifically , afte r lea rningthat no one wor

king a t L RMC’s Radiology

Depa rtment had a

ny knowledg e of r ecor ds relatingto Plainti ff, Mr. E ng land may have simply conclude d that no such docume nts ex isted. I nstead, he rea ched out to Plaintiff’s for mer supervisor to inquire where such docume nts might be ke pt. Def.’ s Stm t. ¶ 17; Eng land Dec l. ¶¶ 1418-19. See Valencia-Luce na v. U.S. Coast Guard, 180 F.3d 321, 328 ( D.C. Cir. 1999) (“When

all other sourc es fa il to provide leads to [a] m issing re cord, a g ency personne l should be contac ted if there is a close ne x us . . . betwee n the per son and the pa rticular r ecor d.”). U sing the information obtained f

rom Plaintiff’s forme r super visor, staff in the Radiolog y Depa rtment conducte d a sec ond sear ch in an attempt to locate re sponsive documents. Eng land Dec l. ¶¶ 18- 19. Simi larly , when Plaintiff expressed a conce rn that De fenda

nt’s initial production lacked documents in the per iod ext endingfrom May 2008 throug h J une 2008, Mr. Eng land re quested that two individuals identified by Plaintiff conduct a f

urther se arc h of their c omputers for responsive doc uments. Id. ¶ 28. Althoug h that sear ch yielded no additional docume nts, it i s axiom atic that the r easona bleness of a

n ag ency ’s sea

rch doe s not hinge upon the re sulting harve st. See Ford v. U.S. De p’t of Justice , Civ. A. No. 07-1305 (CKK) , 2008 WL2248267, at *4 (D.D.C. May

29, 2008) (“ An ag ency ’s lack of succe ss in locating r esponsive re cords doe s not rende r the sea

rch ina dequate when the a g ency ’s supporting decla rations establish its compliance with FOIA.”)

. Finally , Mr. Eng land’s dec laration, goingbeyond simply aver ringthat all files likely

to include re sponsive documents we re se arc hed, provide s that the 132 pag es of doc uments he located c omprised the only documents maintained by Def endant that we re r esponsive to Plaintiff’s reque st. Def.’ s Stm t. ¶ 17; Eng land Dec l. ¶ 20. That De fenda

nt’s submissi ons could have hy pothetically

been mor e deta iled – for example, in describingthe g eographic location of c erta in files – does not preve nt the Court from concludingthat Def

endant ha s satisfactor ily

demonstrated the adequa cy of its searc h, nor prec lude a f

inding that summary

judgme nt is appropriate

. See P erry , 684 F.2d at 127 (“To be

15sure, the de scriptions of the sea rche s could have been mor e deta iled . . . . The a rguable inadequa cy

of the sea

rch de scriptions here is, however , no more than ma rg inal and does not rende r the g rant of summar y judgme nt inappropriate .”). B eca use the re cord e vidence s that Def endant c onducted a

n informed, de tailed, and g ood faith sea rch of source s likely

to reve al documents re sponsive to Plainti ff’ s second F OIA re quest, the Court finds that there is no ge nuine issue as to the re asonable ness of De fenda nt’s sear ch.

. 2. Plaintiff’s Alleg ations of B ad F aith Once an ag ency

has made a prima facie showing of ade quacy , the burde n shifts to the plaintiff to provide “ ‘counte rvailingevidenc e’ a s to the adequa cy of the a g ency ’s sea

rch.” Iturralde , 315 F.3d at 314; see also W eisberg , 705 F.2d at 1351-52 (once the ag ency has discharg ed the bur den of de monstrating the adequa cy of its searc h, its posit ion may be re butted only by a showingthat the sea

rch w as not made in g ood faith). Indeed, the plaintiff must provide evidenc e suff

icient to raise “ substantial doubt” conce rningthe ade quacy of the a g ency ’s sea

rch. Iturralde , 315 F.3d at 314 (citing Valencia-Luce na , 180 F.3d a t 326)). I n opposing the prese nt motion, P laintiff ra ises a number of alleg ations purportedly g oing to De fenda

nt’s g ood faith in respondingto her F OIA re quests, none of which ar e of a ny avail her e.

a. Def

endant’ s Underly

ing Conduc t As an initial matter, the va st majority of Plaintiff’s alleg ations are simply immaterial to the question of whe ther De fenda nt acted in g ood faith in conduc ting its sear ch for responsive documents. Specific ally , Plaintiff contends that De fenda nt acted in ba d faith by : (a) imprope rly submitt ing a

second O ffice r Evaluation Report for Plaintiff (a so-ca lled “re fer

red O ER”); (b) stating in the r efe rre d OER that Plaintiff was re primanded f or unprof essional conduc t; (c)

16ref

using to a llow Plainti ff to provide input reg ardingthe incident under lying the afor ementioned repr imand; (d) per

mitti ng a junior off

icer to author Plaintiff’s letter of repr imand; (e) making false statements with respe ct to Plaintiff’s PPE; (f) alteringPlaintiff’s PPE after it had a lrea dy been ma de par

t of Def endant’ s officia l rec ord; and (g ) fa iling to “r estore [her] reputation” afte r she wa s repr imanded in the pre sence of junior offic ers. Pl.’s St mt. ¶¶ 7-8, 10-14. E ach of the 1 5 fore g oing a lleg ations g oes to the propr iety of De fenda

nt’s underlying c onduct vis-a-v is Plaintiff duringthe cour se of he r employ ment, or shortly

there afte r, and ha

ve no bea ringupon the only question now befor e the Court: i.e. , whether Def endant ha s adequately

discharg ed its obligations under F OIA. Simply

put, a plaintiff ca

nnot challeng e the a dequac y of a se arc h based on the underlying a ctions that are the subject of the reque st; rather, he or she must “c halleng e the adequa cy of a se arc h by

arguing tha

t the search itself . . . was c onducted in bad f aith.” Acc uracy in Media, Inc . v. Nat’l Transp. Safety Bd. , Civ. A. No. 03-24 (CKK) , 2006 WL826070, at *9-10 (D.D.C. Mar . 29, 2006) (e mphasis added) ; see also W eisberg , 705 F.2d at 1360 (alleg ations reg ardingthe proprie ty

of the investig ation subject to plaintiff’s F OIA re quest “too attenuated and unsubstantiated to ra ise a g enuine issue of materia l fac t conce rningthe [ag ency ’s] compliance with its FOI A obligations”); W estern Ctr. for Journalism v. Internal Rev enue Se rv. , 116 F. Supp. 2d 1, 10 (D.D .C. 2000) (plaintiff’s a lleg ations that underlying a udit was “politically inspired” immater ial to adequa cy of ag ency ’s sea

rch) , aff’d , 22 Fe d. Appx. 14 (D.C. C ir. 2001). 1 6 Additionally , Plaintiff has appe nded to her opposition papers a numbe r of doc uments 1 5 appar ently

g oing to the pr opriety

of ce rtain employ

ment actions under

taken by Def endant with respe ct to Plaintiff. Pl.’s S tmt. Ex s. 3, 5-12. One c an imag ine the ca se whe re the ag ency ’s under lying a ctions may be re levant to the 1 6 question of whethe r the sea rch w as ade quate a

nd undertaken in g ood faith – e.g. , when a plaintiff prese nts credible e vidence of a c oncer ted “c over- up” on the a g ency ’s par t – but this is not such a 17As such, ea ch of Plaintiff’s a lleg ations, even if hy pothetically

coupled with ade quate r ecor d support, would be insuffic ient to rebut De fenda nt’s showing that its searc h was re asonable and undertaken in g ood faith.

b. Delay s in Defe ndant’s Response Plaintiff next intimates that a findingof bad f aith may rest upon the c ontention that

cer tain documents – the WRAMC Documents – “we re not for thcoming” from De fenda nt, and

wer e soug ht out only

afte r Plaintiff had filed the Complaint i n this action. Pl.’s S tmt. ¶ 3. Plaintiff’s argument fails for two inde pendent r easons. F irst, courts routinely find that delay s in respondingto FOIA re quests are not, in and of themselves, indicative of ag ency bad fa ith. See, e.g. , Iturralde , 315 F.3d at 315 (“initial delay s in respondingto a FO I A re quest are rar ely , if eve r, g rounds for disc reditinglater a ffidavits by the ag ency”); Fischer v . U.S. Dep’ t of Justice , Civ. A. No. 07-2037 (E SH), 2010 WL2745811, at *3 (D.D .C. J uly 13, 2010) (r ejec ting a

rgument that ag ency ’s fa ilure to produce documents until after litigation commenc ed evide nced a g ency ’s bad faith). Sec ond, Plaintiff’s char acte rization of Defe ndant’s conduc t is belied by the re cord:

case . Elsewher e, Plaintiff states that she c orre sponded with Def endant in the time per iod during which Mr. Eng land was c onducting Def endant’ s sear ch, expressingher intent to appe al Def endant’ s decision to place a letter of re primand in her pe rsonnel file. Pl.’s Stmt. ¶ 2 and Ex s. 1-3. The import of Plaintiff’ s alleg ation is not entirely clea r. To the e x tent Plaintiff intends to sug g est that Def

endant wa s motivated by

bad fa ith as a re sult of Plainti ff’ s use of interna l dispute resolution proce dures, Plaintiff off ers no e videntiary

support that would sug g est that Mr. Eng land (or a ny one else involved in the sear ch) w as motivated by bad fa ith as a re sult, and Plainti ff cannot r ely

on conclusory

and spec ulative asser

tions to raise “substantial doubt” a s to the propriety of De fenda

nt’s sear ch. Mea

nwhile, to the extent Pl aintiff intends to sug g est that such corr espondenc e should have been, but wa s not, produced in r esponse to her reque sts, Defe ndant is corre ct that it is not dut y -bound to ac count for doc uments which a r equeste r has in some wa y identified, provided it has ma de a dilig ent sea rch f or docume nts in those places whe re the y might be expected to be found. See I turralde v. Comptroller of Cur rency , 315 F.3d 311, 315 ( D.C. Cir. 2003) (“A fter a ll, particular doc uments may have be en ac cidentally

lost or destroy ed, or a rea sonable a

nd thoroug h sear ch may

have missed them.” ).

18Def

endant’ s submissi ons stand uncontra dicted in explaining that the de lay in securingrevie w of the WRAMC Documents wa s the result of a simple administrative err or. 1 7

c. Discre pancie s in Page Counts Plaintiff further

argues that summary

judgme nt is inappropriate he re be cause “[t] here is conflictinginformation with respe ct to the number of documents that have been pr oduced.” Pl.’s Stmt . ¶ 1. In one re spect, Plaintiff is corr ect. On the rec ord bef ore it, the Court simply

has no way of knowinghow many

pag es we re ultimately

disclosed or fr om which unit they orig inated. See supra. Part I .A.2.d. Howe ver, while Def endant’ s failing in this reg ard pr events the Court from dete rmining whether Def endant ha s proper ly

withheld or re dacte d information pursuant to the claimed e x emptions, see infra. Part I I I .B.1, it does not ca ll into questi on the g ood faith of Def endant’ s sear ch. See Fischer , 2010 WL2745811, at *3 (“ inconsistent reports” of the number of re sponsive documents located insufficie nt to warra nt finding of

bad fa ith”). d. Notice of

Appea l Plaintiff also contends that she ne ver r ece ived notice f rom the 21st TSC informing her of her r ight to administrative a ppeal, a fac t disputed by

Def endant. Pl.’s Stmt. ¶ 5; Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 38. This contention also fails to raise a g enuine issue a s to the g ood faith of De fenda nt’s sear ch. As an initial matter, Plaintiff’s alleg ation does not addre ss the merits of the sea rch itself, but

In November

2008, Mr. Eng land forw arde d Plaintiff’s reque st and eig ht pag es of 1 7 documents to WRAMC ’s FO I A Off ice. Eng land Dec l. ¶ 25. As it turned out, Mr. Eng land sent his init ial ref

err al to an individual no longe r employ ed at WRAMC. Id. ¶ 31. On or a bout September 15, 2009, upon le arningthat WR AMC had no re cord of the re fer ral, Mr. Eng land soug ht to remedy

the situation and expedited the proce ss by sendingthe documents a nd ref err al to MEDCOM and WRAMC that same da y . Id. ; Peterson Dec l. ¶ 13. True , by that point, Def endant ha d alre ady

responde d to some or all of Plaintiff’s a ppeals, but the submissions by Def endant’ s decla

rants and c ontemporane ous corr espondenc e evide nce tha t the delay

was the result of a dminist rative e rror , and Plaintiff has put for war d no evidenc e sug g esting otherwise. 19rathe r subseque nt administrative action. Reg ardle ss, beca use De fenda

nt has not pressed f

ailure to exhaust admini strative re medies as a g round for

dismiss al, the question of what notice Plaintiff

rec eived, a

nd when, is immaterial to the disposition of the prese nt motion. See Oglesby , 920 F.2d at 65 (only

wher e ag ency ’s initial response c omplies with statutory require ments, including notifying the reque ster of the rig ht to appeal a dverse decisions to the hea d of the a g ency , may the reque ster’s f

oreg oing of

an administrative a

ppeal pr eclude future suit) ( citing 5 U .S.C. § 552(a) (6)( A)(i) ). Reg ardle ss of whate ver a dminist rative r ights Plaintiff may have ha d, she has not been de nied a r ight to be he ard be fore the cour ts.

e. Redac tion of the PPE Finally , Plaintiff argues that De fenda nt wrong fully

reda cted the signature block from the PPE. P l.’s Stmt . ¶ 9. Ag ain, Plaintiff’s alleg ation does not impugn the sear ch itself. In any event, it is undisputed that Defe ndant voluntarily rele ased the contents of the sig nature block upon further

revie w, Def

.’s Stmt. ¶ 12, a fac t that, if any thing, spe aks to Def

endant’ s g ood faith in respondingto Plainti ff’ s reque sts. B. Defendant’

s Claimed Exem

ptions “I f an a g ency

invokes an e x emption, it bears the bur den of e stablishing the a pplicability of the c laimed exemption,” Assassinati on Archive s , 334 F.3d at 57, and the ag ency ’s justification must be “log ical” or

“plausible,” Larson v. Dep’t of State , 565 F.3d 857, 862 ( D.C. Cir. 2009). Thus, havingdeter

mined that Def

endant ha s car

ried its burden of

showing that it conducted a

sear ch re asonably

calc ulated to uncove r re sponsive documents, and ha ving f ound that Plaintiff has fa iled to adduce sufficie nt evidence in rebuttal to raise a substantial doubt as to Def endant’ s g ood faith, the Court now turns to the que stion of the propriety of De fenda

nt’s decision to

20withhold or reda ct ce rtain information. 1. Adequa cy

of De fenda

nt’s Vaughn Index Be fore addre ssing the substanc e of D efe ndant’s cla imed exemptions , howeve r, the Court ag ain pause s to assess the suffic iency of De fenda

nt’s evidentiar

y showing . Gene rally , the Court may awa rd summary

judgme nt to an ag ency

solely on information provided in a ffidavits or decla rations, provided, how ever , that the ag ency ’s submissions: (a) set forth a “re latively detailed” justification; (b) spec ifically identify the re asons why

a par ticular e x emption is rele vant; and (c ) cor

relate those cla ims with t he par ticular pa rt of a w ithheld document to which they apply

. Judicial W

atch, Inc . v. Food &Drug Admin. , 449 F.3d 141, 145 ( D.C. Cir. 2006) (interna l quotation marks and notations omitted) (citing Mead D ata Cent., Inc. v. U .S. Dep’ t of Air Force , 566 F.2d 242, 251 ( D.C. Cir. 1977)). The import of suc h submissi ons, often loosely ref err ed to as “ Vaughn indices” is clear : “[t] he ag ency would . . . have a

near ly impreg nable 1 8 defe nsive position save for the fac t that the statute place s the burden ‘ on the ag ency to sustain its action.’” Judicial W

atch , 449 F.3d a

t 146 (quoting 5 U .S.C. § 552(a)(4) (B )). The pre cise for

m of the Vaughn index i s immaterial. Judicial W atch , 449 F.3d at 145; see also Ac curacy

in Media , 2006 WL826070, at *4 (“ There is no set formula for a Vaughn index”). I nstead, the a dequac y of the a g ency ’s Vaughn index i s assessed in a ccor dance with the three interre lated func tions it is designe d to serve: ( a) to for ce the ag ency to car efully

analy ze any information withheld; (b) to ena ble the district cour

t to fulfill it s duty

of eva luating the

In Vaughn v. Rose n , 484 F.2d 820 ( D.C. Cir. 1973), cert. de nied , 415 U.S. 977 (1974), 1 8 the D.C. Circuit Court of Appea ls provided that ag encie s should ge nera lly prepa re a n itemiz ed index correlatingeac h withheld document (or portion thereof

) with a spec ific F OIA exemption and the a g ency ’s justification for non- disclosure. 21applicability of cla imed exemptions ; and (c ) to empowe r the plaintiff to pre sent his case to the district court. Keys v. U

.S. Dep’ t of Justice , 830 F.2d 337, 349 ( D.C. Cir. 1987)

. Ultimately , howeve r, “[s]pecificity

is the definingrequire ment of the Vaughn index and affidavit.” King v. U.S. Dep’ t of Justice , 830 F.2d 210, 219 ( D.C. Cir. 1987). Thoug h the question of how pa rticularized the a g ency ’s showingmust be in a g iven context has at times beg uiled litigants and c ourts alike, it is clear that, with respec t to four cate g ories of doc uments – i.e. , the L RMC Documents, the MEDCOM Documents, the USAREUR Documents, and the WRAMC Documents – the De fenda nt’s Vaughn index (if it m ay even be char acte rized as such) f alls short of fulfilling the functional e nds set forth in dec ades of jurisprudenc e. 1 9 Plaintiff’s most detailed (thoug h still defic ient) desc ription conce rns the 108 pag es of the L RMC Documents. I n descr ibing the e x emptions claimed, Mr. Eng land’s dec laration provides, in releva nt part: Enclosed with the reque st wer e one hundred an d ei gh t (108) pag es of documents responsi ve to the reque st. The documents included emails, Offic er Evaluation Reports, [P laintiff’ s ] o rder s, Memoranda for Record, a letter of Reprimand and a Rebuttal to the Reprimand. The documents wer e reda cted in acc ordanc e with FOIA Ex emptions (b)( 5) and (b)( 6). These reda ctions wer e third-par ty persona l information, exempt under Ex emption (b)( 6 ). [P laintiff’s] file contained e-ma il corr esponden ce re l ating to an incident involving [P laintiff] and what the proper response to her chain of command to this incident wo u l d b e; Plaintiff eventua lly rec eived the above- listed L etter of Reprimand. I reda cted these pre- decisional email discussions under Exemption (b)(6). Eng land Dec l. ¶ 21. Simi larly , a sec ond decla rant for Def endant, a fter c onflatingthe L RMC

On the other

hand, bec ause the Court concludes that it has sufficient information to 1 9 evaluate the De fenda

nt’s claims of exemptions with respect to the PPE and the 21st TSC Documents, those c ateg ories ar e addr essed be low. See infra. Part I I I .B.2. 22Documents a nd the MEDCOM Docume nts, avers that (a) some unknown portion of those documents included pr e-de cisional e-ma il corre spondence reg arding“the a g encydecisionmaking proce ss in reg ard to a spects of Plaintiff’s e mploy ment,” and ( b) some unknown por tion included “na

mes and e mail addre sses of ce rtain individuals.” B uchholz Decl. ¶¶ 11-12, 18. Def endant de scribed the MEDCOM Documents a nd the WRAMC Documents with a simil arly cava lier appr oach. I

n both instances, although the re cord sug g ests that some number of documents we re pr oduced, a nd portions thereof

wer e withheld and/or

reda cted pur suant to Ex emptions (b)(5) and (b) (6), see Peterson De cl. ¶¶ 8- 9, 14-15; Buc hholz Decl. ¶¶ 11- 12, 16-18, Def endant’ s submissi ons are utterly lackingin specificity . Meanwhile, with respec t to the USAREUR Documents, the Court has a lrea dy descr ibed how, base d on the re cord c reated by the parties, it is simply

incapa ble of disce rningthe ultimate fate of the thre e pag es within that cate g ory . See supra. Part. I .A.2.f. What portion of those docume nts (if any ) we re w ithheld, and the basis for the withholding, has not be en made clea r to this Court. Simpl y put, Defe ndant’s desc riptions are so swe epingas to preve nt the Court (and Plaintiff) from fully

evaluating its claims to privileg e with re spect to the L RMC Documents, the MEDCOM Documents, the U SAREUR Documents, and the WRAMC Documents. See Maydak , 254 F. Supp. 2d at 35 (a g ency ’s submissions “too conclusory , vague and sw eeping to support summary judgme nt” wher e ag ency relied on multiple exceptions to just ify withholding information, but failed to matc h the withheld information with the cla imed exemption and explain how the exempti on applied). Mor eover , Def endant invariably

failed to c orre late the claimed e x emptions with specific doc uments (or portions there of) a nd, in most i nstance s, neg lected to de scribe in r easona ble detail the c ontents of the withheld docume nts.

23At their cor e, De fenda nt’s submissi ons reduc e to a blanke t assertion that it proper ly reda cted some unknown portion of re sponsive documents that included pe rsonal information and some unknown portion of e -mail corr espondenc e re lating to Plaintiff’s e mploy ment. The Court, howeve r, is not free to acc ept an a g ency ’s ipse dixit reg ardingthe proprie ty

of its decisions. Cf. Vaughn v. Rose n , 484 F.2d 820, 825- 26 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (r ejec ting the g overnme nt’s claim that “all it need[s] t o do to fulfill its burden is to ave r that the fa ctual natur e of the information is such that it falls under one of the e x emptions.”), cert. de nied , 415 U.S. 977 (1974). De fenda nt must prese nt this C ourt with sufficient de tail and context to assess those decisions. See King , 830 F.2d at 221. Moreove r, at the ve ry least, De fenda

nt’s descr iptions are too vag ue and non- specific to evidenc e that it car efully

analy zed all information withheld. Id. Indeed, it appe ars f rom Def endant’ s submissi ons that broad c ateg ories of dispar ate infor mation were potentially

lumped toge ther without thoug htful analy sis. That may very well not be the c ase, but De fenda nt has failed to provide this Court wit h sufficie nt information to conclude othe rwise at this st ag e of the proce eding s. Perhaps most importantly , Def endant’ s submissi ons do not give this Court enough information to conduct a

n adequa te seg reg ability

analy sis, as it must . An ag ency has the burde n of deta iling what proportion of a doc ument is non-exempt, and how that materia l is dispersed throug h the document, Mead D ata , 566 F.2d at 261, and wher e an a g ency ’s submission does not specify which portions of the doc uments withheld are disclosable and which ar e alleg edly exempt, it does not eve n qualify as a Vaughn index, Kimberlin v. Dep’ t of Justice , 139 F.3d 944, 950 (D.C. Cir.), cert. de nied, 525 U.S. 891 (1998); see also Schiller v. Nat’l Labor Relations Bd. , 964 F.2d 1205, 1210 ( D.C. Cir. 1992) (ag ency ’s submissions, rather than pr ocee ding doc ument

24by

document, should have corr elated c laimed theorie s with the particular text ual seg ments withheld). He re, D efe ndant has not eve n offe red a n unequivoca l aver

ment that it conducted a thoroug h seg reg ability

analy sis and that, afte r ea ch individual document wa s review ed, all

rea sonably

seg reg able infor

mation was re lease d to Plainti ff. The Court pause s to observe that, notwithst andingthe fore g oing, a n ag ency is not prec luded from g roupingcate g ories of doc uments that merit simil ar tre atment when pr eparing its Vaughn index. Used properly , abstrac tion may actua lly assist a court in re viewingthe ag ency ’s actions. Judicial W

atch , 449 F.3d at 147. Howeve r, the e ssential point is t hat the ag ency must, at the ver y least, “e x plain[] itself throug h commonalities , not generalities ,” and e x plain why the exemption applies to t he docume nt (or ty pe of doc ument) withheld while a ffor ding due attention to the contents of the w ithheld information. Id. (empha sis in original); compare Keys , 830 F.2d at 349-50 (a g ency

situated ea ch docume nt into it s historical context and adequately explained exemptions throug h use of “ functional c ateg ories”) , and Judicial W atch , 449 F.3d at 146-47 (ag ency specific ally

identified individual documents, with detailed data re g ardingtheir sourc e and natur e, and supple mented its index with a dec laration focusing on cate g ories of infor mation and how they

related to claimed e x emptions), with King , 830 F.2d a t 220-21 (ag ency ’s annotate d cata logue of docume nts, failing to c orre late the c laimed exemption to redacte d documents, wa s “unhelpf ully cate g orica l”). Whil e the diff iculty of asse ssing the suf

ficienc y of an a g ency ’s 2 0

In Morley v . Cent. IntelligenceAgenc y , 508 F.3d 1108, 1123 ( D.C. Cir. 2007), the 2 0 ag ency ’s itemized Vaughn index failed to match ea ch re daction with a spe cific e x emption, but did “identify

the exemptions claimed for e ach individual docume nt.” Althoug h criticizing the ag ency ’s appr oach a s less than fulsome in tying tog ether the documents at issue with the claimed justification, the court c oncluded that the a g ency conveyed enough information “to identify the rec ords re fer ence d and [to] understand the basic re asoningbehind the cla imed exemptions .” Id. Her e, in contra st, Defe ndant’s fa ilure to provide a ny thing r emotely

approa chingan itemized 25submissi ons will no doubt i ncre ase the far ther one depar

ts from the extremes, wha t is clear is that an ag ency cannot c ouple a swe epingcate g orica l description of the w ithheld information with a cate g orica l expl anation of the justification for non-disclosure and hope to pr evail on summary judgme nt. King , 830 F.2d at 224. Be cause that is all Defe ndant has off ere d as of this stag e in the proce eding s, the Court is compelled to deny Def endant’ s Motion for Summary J udg ment as it relates to (a) the L RMC Documents, (b) the MEDCOM Doc uments, (c) the USAREUR Documents, a

nd (d) the WRAMC Documents. The Court, howe ver, e x presse s no view on the va lidity of the unde rlying w ithholding decisions conc erningthese doc uments. To permit the Court to assess those dec isions, Defenda nt must first identify

with rea sonable spec ificity the information withheld fr om eac h document ( e.g. , the e- mail addre sses of re cipients, draf t lang uag e for

Plaintiff’s letter of r eprimand, e tc.), set f orth

a re asonably

detailed justification for

invoking the e x emption, and cor rela te the cla imed justification with the specific inf ormation withheld ( i.e. , explain why the exemption applies in the g iven context). Until Defenda nt has done so, this Court is in no pos ition to opi ne on the merits of De fenda

nt’s claims.

index prevents such a c onclusion. Nor is this an instance where the Court can e x cuse the failure to provide an itemized index, as Defe ndant has c laimed multiple ex emptions to an unknown number of pote ntially

overla pping doc uments. See Tax Analysts v. Internal Re venueServ. , 414 F. Supp. 2d 1, 3-4 (D .D.C. 2006) (findingan itemized Vaughn index unnecessar y wher e all the rec ords at issue fe ll under a sing le exemption, and ag ency had outlined the categ ories of the documents withheld and the circ umstances of their cr eation); Mead D ata Cent., Inc. v. U .S. Dep’ t of Air Force , 566 F.2d 242, 252 ( D.C. Cir. 1977) (“The source , subject matter, a nd nature of ea ch document we re de scribed se parately , and althoug h not individually stated for eac h document, it is clea r fr om the nature of the doc uments and the sing le exemption asserted whic h justifications apply to which documents.” ). 262. Ex emptions Claimed for the RemainingDocuments

Despite the issues outlined above with respec t to Defe ndant’s Vaughn index, t he Court conclude s that Defe ndant has a dduced suf ficient e vidence on the pre sent motion to allow the Court to assess the exemptions claimed by Def endant with re spect to two sets of doc uments: (a) the PPE; and (b) the 21st TSC Documents. Be fore proce eding , the Court reiter ates that the ag ency bear s the burden of

establishing the applicability of any claimed e x emption, Assassinati on Archive

s , 334 F.3d at 57, and notes that, g iven the statutory desig n, “exemptions from disclosure must be narr owly construed, a

nd conclusory

and g ener alized alleg ations of exemptions are unacc eptable,” Morley v . Cent. Intelligence Agenc y , 508 F.3d 1108, 1114- 15 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (inter

nal citations and quotation marks omitted).

a. The PPE and Exempti on (b)( 6) Ex emption (b)(6) applies to “pe rsonnel and me dical files the disc losure of which would constitute a cle arly

unwar rante d invasion of per sonal privac y .” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6) . I t has repe atedly

been he ld that “information such a s names, addr esses, a nd other pe rsonal identifying information [may ] properly [be] withheld beca

use it cre ates a

palpable thr eat to priva cy .” Y elder v. U.S. De p’t of Defense , 577 F. Supp. 2d 342, 346 (D.D .C. 2008) (interna l quotation marks omitted) (citing Carter v. U.S. De p’t of Commerce , 830 F.2d 388, 391 ( D.C. Cir. 1987)). He re, Def endant initially

reda cted the sig nature block and the e -mail addre ss from the fina l pag e of the three -pag e PPE, citing F OIA Exempti on (b)( 6). De f.’s Stmt. ¶ 6. Upon further consideration, Def endant r elea sed the c ontents of the sig nature block, but continued to withhold the e-ma il addre ss. Id. ¶ 12. Plaintiff has pointed to no public intere st in disclosi ng the e- mail addre ss, and the Court conclude s there is no such inter est sufficie nt to outweigh the privac y interest involved.

27Cf. Y

elder , 577 F. Supp. 2d at 346 (inva sion of privac y unwar rante d wher e public intere st is “suff iciently wea ker” ). More over, the Court concludes, a nd Plaintiff does not actua lly dispute, that Def endant ha s detailed whic h portions of the PPE are disclosa ble, and ha s produce d all

rea sonably

seg reg able por

tions. As such, the Court shall g rant De fenda nt’s Motion for 2 1 Summary J udg ment with respec t to the PP E.

b. The 21st TSC Documents and Exemption (b)(5) Ex emption (b)(5) g overns “ inter-a g ency or intra- ag ency

memorandums or le tters which 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). The exemption i ncorpor ates both the tra ditional privilege attachingto confide ntial communications betwee n an attorne y and client r elatingto a leg al matter f or which the client has soug ht professional a dvice, Mead D ata , 566 F.2d at 252-53, as we ll as what is often re fer

red to a s the “de liberative pr ocess” privileg e, which e x empts from disclosure e lements of the a g ency ’s dec isionmaking proc ess, SafeCard , 926 F.2d at 1204. Her e, of the 132 pag es located duringDef endant’ s sear ch, seve n – i.e. , the 21st TSC Documents – c onsisted of e-ma il corre spondence betwee n the 21st TSC m ilitary counsel a nd the Commander of L RMC, and certa in draft doc uments. CraigDec l. ¶ 3; Swope Dec l. ¶¶ 4-5. Def endant de termined that none of the infor mation contained in the se ven pag es wa s relea sable, citing the attorney -client privileg e and the deliberative proce ss privileg es. De f.’s Stmt. ¶ 38. Although D efe ndant ave rs that one pa rty to the communications at issue wa s mili tary counsel,

Even whe re the y

are not specifica lly

raised by the par ties, district courts are obligated 2 1 to consider se g reg ability

issues sua sponte. Trans-Pac. Policing Agree ment v. U .S. Customs Serv. , 177 F.3d 1022, 1028 ( D.C. Cir. 1999). FOI A re quires that an a g ency produce “any rea sonably

seg reg able por

tion” of a r ecor d that is not ex empt from disclosure

.

28CraigDec l. ¶ 3; Swope Dec l. ¶¶ 4-5, D efe ndant has fa iled to present a ny evidenc e demonstrating the conf idential nature of the c ommunications, or showing that they wer e made for pur

poses of seekingor re nderingleg al advice

. See Mead D ata , 566 F.2d at 254 (ag ency ’s desc ription, stating only the subject, sourc e, and r ecipient of the communications, provided no indica tion as to the confide ntiality

of the infor

mation on which they

wer e base d). Simil arly , while the “dr afts” ref ere nced by

Def endant may

very well fa ll within t he ambit of the “ deliberative proce ss” privileg e, De fenda

nt fails to describe the contents of those draf ts or how they

relate to a spec ific ag ency decision. See SafeCard , 926 F.2d at 1204 (to invoke the deliber ative proc ess privileg e,

2 2 “the a g ency

must describe not only

the contents of the document but also enough about its context, viz. the ag ency ’s dec isionmaking proc ess,” includingwhether the document e x plains, direc tly or by ref ere nce, the rea son for the a g ency ’s dec ision); Maydak , 254 F. Supp. 2d at 37 (fa ulting ag ency

for f ailing to identify

the dec ision or policy

to which the withheld information purportedly

contributed a

nd explain how it fit into the deliberative proce ss). Wit hout such context, the Court is unable to asse ss the validity of De fenda

nt’s claims, see Morley , 508 F.3d at 1127 (summary

judgme nt inappropriate wher e “minimal information” pr ovided as to whe ther ag ency proper ly applied Exemption (b)(5)), a nd the Court shall theref

ore de ny Def endant’ s Motion for Summary

J udg ment with respec t to the 21st TSC Documents. As befor e, the Court expresses no view on the validity

of the unde rly

ing w ithholding decisions conc erningthese doc uments. Defe ndant must first identify with rea sonable spec ificity the information withheld fr om eac h document, set for th a re asonably

detailed justification for Although mindful of the possibili ty that both sets of documents we re c rea ted in the 2 2 context of fashioning an appr opriate r esponse to an e mploy ment-re lated issue involving Plaintiff, Def endant doe s not establish that connec tion in it s submissi ons. 29invoking the e x emption, and cor relate the cla imed justification with the specific inf ormation withheld. C. Plaintif

f’s Reque st for Discovery and In Camera Rev iew Finally , the Court construes Plaintiff’s submissions as reque sting a n order that discovery be had or , in the alternative, that the Court revie w the docume nts at issue in camera . In the FO I A context, a district court has broa d discretion in deny ing both discove ry

and in camera revie w. See SafeCard , 926 F.2d at 1205 (discover y ); Boyd , 475 F.3d at 382 ( in camera revie w). I n an exercise of

its discretion, the Court shall deny Plaintiff’s reque sts at this t ime, with leave to

rene w af ter De fenda

nt has had a

n opportunity

to supplement its Mot ion for Summary J udg ment with appropriate supporting materia ls. IV. CONCLUSION For the fore g oing r easons, the Court sha ll therefor e GRANT- I N-PART Def

endant’ s [9] Motion for Summary

J udg ment with respec t to the PP E, and DEN Y-I N-PART Def

endant’ s motion with respect to the L RMC Documents, the MEDCOM Documents, the 21st TSC Documents, the U SAREUR Documents, and the WRAMC Documents. An appr opriate O rder

acc ompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Date: September 30, 2010 /s/ COL L EEN KOL L AR-KOTEL L Y United States District J udg e

30