1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

DENNIS WILLIAM IRVING, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 13-1233 (BAH)

)

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY/ )

BUREAU OF THE PUBLIC DEBT, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

The Court previously entered a Memorandum and Order, ECF No. 15, granting in part 

and denying in part the defendant Department of Treasury’s (DOT) motion for summary 

judgment. See Aug. 7, 2014 Mem. Op. and Order, ECF No. 15. The defendant has now 

supplemented the record in accordance with the Court’s order to: (1) provide details about its 

search for records responsive to the plaintiff’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, and 

(2) place the subject FOIA request in the record. Def.’s Supplemental Filing in Supp. of Mot. for 

Summ. J., ECF No. 17. The defendant proffers the supplemental declaration of Denise K. 

Nelson, who is “the Disclosure Officer at the Bureau of the Fiscal Service . . ., formerly known as 

the Bureau of the Public Debt (BPD)[.]” Supp’l Decl. of Denise K. Nelson ¶ 1, ECF No. 17-1. 

Upon consideration of the foregoing documents and the plaintiff’s supplemental response, the 

Court will grant summary judgment to the defendant on the remaining search question and 

enter judgment accordingly. 
2

I. THE FOIA REQUEST

The Court determined from the parties’ pleadings that “the substance of the [thenmissing] request [was] not in dispute,” Mem. Op. at 2, but it could not assess the 

reasonableness of the defendant’s search without knowing the scope of the request. See id. at 

7. The actual FOIA request reveals that the plaintiff addressed it to Denise Nelson’s attention

and prefaced it with the following: “Now onto the information I need, at the Bureau of Public 

Debt.” FOIA Req. at 1, ECF No. 17-2. The plaintiff then requested: (1) “[a]ll information 

pertaining to the initial inception of my cusip [number], to include [names] . . . and account, or 

any numbers related as well and initial amount in cusip;” (2) “My cusip [number] account 

information, net assets, portfolio assets, and inception amounts;” (3) “any current information 

or status of account;” and (4) “any info on my Bid Bonds Standard 24, Performance Bonds 25 

Standard, Payment Bond . . . Standard all through comptroller . . . General Services 

Administration.” Id. at 1-2. Supposedly to assist with the search, the plaintiff referred also to 

“Fidelity Dividend Growth Fund Diversified.” Id. at 2. 

In addition, the plaintiff posed the following questions with regard to his purported 

account: “Where is the account now? Who is trading it? Who is my fund manager?”; and 

posed the following questions with regard to the bonds: “What are the amounts on those 

Bonds? Who put them out? Who has them?” Id. But see Mem. Op. at 5 (“The agency has no 

obligation to create records or to answer questions[.]”) (citing cases).

II. DISCUSSION

In the initial ruling, the Court found that the defendant had adequately explained why it 

could not search its filing systems by CUSIP number, as the plaintiff seemed to request, and for 
3

records pertaining to the Fidelity Dividend Growth Fund Diversified, which the defendant did 

not maintain. See Mem. Op. at 6; see also id. at 1, n.1 (explaining CUSIP). The Court agreed, 

however, that the defendant had not adequately described the three BPD record systems that 

were searched; consequently, it denied the defendant’s motion on this aspect of the claim 

without prejudice to reconsideration upon supplementation of the record. See id. at 7-8. 

The defendant’s declarant has now described the three searched record systems in 

sufficient detail and explained why those systems are most likely to contain responsive 

information “related to Mr. Irving and records of securities instruments owned by or associated 

with [him].” Nelson Supp’l Decl. ¶ 6. Those systems “cover various records/filing systems that 

contain [documents] relating to Treasury’s issuance, registration, and payments of Treasury 

securities . . . .” Id. ¶ 7; see also id. ¶¶ 8-14 (providing details about each system). A search of 

those systems by the plaintiff’s name and social security number, which is how such records are 

retrieved, located no responsive records. Id. ¶ 15; see Mem. Op. at 2. 

In his supplemental response, the plaintiff states that he wants “ ‘All’ systems within the 

Treasury and [the Bureau of Public Debt]” searched so that he “will know a complete search has 

been made[.]” Pl.’s Response to Def.’s Supplemental Filing in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. at 3, 

ECF No. 18. Just because a plaintiff requests that “all” locations be searched does not require 

an agency to perform such a search. To the contrary, the “FOIA does not provide individuals 

with the right to demand ‘an all-encompassing fishing expedition’ of files in every office . . . ‘at 

taxpayer expense.’ ” Bloeser v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 811 F. Supp. 2d 316, 321 (D.D.C. 2011)

(quoting Dale v. IRS, 238 F. Supp. 2d 99, 105 (D.D.C. 2002)). Moreover, the fact that the plaintiff 

addressed his request to BPD’s disclosure officer and specifically identified BPD as the office 
4

within Treasury from which records were sought further supports the reasonableness of the 

defendant’s search. See id. (noting that “[t]o the extent that plaintiff can identify documents 

which he believes exist in a particular office within the Department of Justice, such identifying 

information should have been included as part of his original FOIA request in order to narrow 

the scope of the search requested”). 

III. CONCLUSION

The defendant has now shown that a reasonably adequate search was conducted for 

responsive records, and the plaintiff has not come forward with any evidence to create a 

genuine dispute about the search. Hence, the Court finds that the defendant is entitled to 

summary judgment on this last remaining issue. A separate final Order accompanies this 

Memorandum Opinion. 

 /s/ Beryl A. Howell

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DATE: November 6, 2014