The pa rties agree d to separate summary judgme nt briefingfor the E OUSA and the 1 FB Iin a J oint St atus Report submitted to the Court on May 30, 2008. Acc ording ly , this Opinion is l imi te d to pla int if

f’ s F OIA r e qu e st t o th e EO USA . T he Court wi ll c on sid e r a ll o f t

he pa rt ie s’ arguments made with re spect to plaintiff’s F OIA re quests to the FB I , including pla intiff’s 2004 reque st, when it considers the pa rtial summary

judgme nt motion which was filed by the FB Ion Marc h 20, 2009 and plaintiff’ s opposition t here to, which is due on April 17, 2009.

The Court consider ed the f ollowing pa

pers: plaintiff’ s Complaint; defe ndant’s 2 Partial Motion for Summary J udg ment (“Mot.”) ; plaintiff’s Opposition to Defenda nt Depar tment of Jus tice’s Motion for Par tial Summ ary

J udg ment and Cross-Motion for Par tial Summ ary J udg ment (“O pp.”); a

nd defe ndant’s Reply

on its Moti on for Par

tial Summ ary

J udg ment and UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT C OU RT F O R T H E D IS T R IC T O F C O LU M B IA

__________________________________________ ) WI L L I AM KENNE Y, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Ci vi l A cti on No. 07 -19 89 (P L F) ) UNI TED STATES DEPARTMENT OF J USTI CE, ) ) De fe nd ant. ) __________________________________________)
OPI NI ON Pla int if f Wi lli am K e nn e y

br ou g ht t his F re e do m of

Inf or matio n A c t ( “ F OIA” ) s uit ag ainst defe ndant, the United States De partment of Justice, to obtain rec ords in the possession of two of its component ag encie s, the Executive Offic e for United States Attorney s (“EO USA”) a nd the Fe dera l Bure au of Investig ation (“F BI ”). D efe ndant now see ks partial summary judgme nt with respec t to the EOUSA’s re sponse to plaintiff’s re quest. Plaintiff has responde d with a 1 cross motion for pa

rtial summary

judgme nt. After c are ful consider ation of the pa rties’ pa pers and the e ntire re cord in the c ase, the Court gr ants defe ndant’s motion and denies pla intiff’s motion. 2Opposition to P laintiff’s Cross-Motion for Par tial Summ ary

J udg ment (“Rep.” ). As provided f

or by L ocal Civil Rule 56.1, the Court will t reat all fac ts identified 3 by defe ndant in its S tatement of Material F acts, a nd not disputed by

plaintiff in his Opposition, as admitted. 2 I . BA CKGROUND On J une 20, 1996, plaintiff, who is c urre ntly servinga prison sente nce imposed by the Un ite d St ate s D istri c t Co ur t f or the Di str ic t of

Ne w H amps hir e fo r a

c ri min a l c onvic tio n in 19 92 , s ub mitte d a

F OIA/ Pr iva c y

Ac t ( “ PA” ) r e qu e st t o th e EO USAre qu e sti ngre c or ds re latin gto the cr iminal case a g ainst him and his co-conspirators. See Mot., Statement of Mate rial F acts Not in Genuine Dispute ( “De f. F acts” ) ¶¶ 1- 3; see a lso United States v. Neal, 36 F .3d 1190 (1st Cir. 1994) (a ffirmingKenne y ’s conviction). The EOU SA forwa rded the reque st to the United States 3 Attor ne y ’s Of fi c e fo r t he Di str ic t of

Ne w H amps hir e (“ USA O D NH ” ) a sk ingit t o c on du c t a
se arc h f or re sp on siv e re c or ds . Se e De f. F a c ts ¶ 4. Th e USA O D NH se arc he d th e c omp ute r c a se trac king sy stem for re cords r esponsive to plaintiff’s r equest, usingplaintiff’s name as a se arc h term. See id. It also conducte d a sea rch of paper rec ords, spec ifically

its indi ces of

criminal and civil case s and the F eder al Recor ds Center’s pa per indice s of cr iminal and civil case s. See id. ¶ 4. USAO DN H also had its staff sear ch their own persona l files for r esponsive re cords. See id. Th e se se arc he s unc ov e re d th e ma ste r c ri min a l c a se fi le fo r p la int if f’ s c ri min a l c a se , 2 7 b oxe s in total. See id. ¶¶ 4, 14.

After initially withholding the r ecor ds, and then subseque ntly deter mining that the
rec ords wer e appr opriate f or proc essingbased on a

chang e in its treatment of Exemption (7)(A) of the F OIA, the EOU SA informed plaintiff by letter of Ma

y 5, 2000 that it had located nine box es of potentially

responsive nonpublic material a nd approximately

11,900 pag es of public,3

c ourt -f ile d p ote nti a lly

re sp on siv e do c ume nts . Se e De f. F a c ts ¶ ¶ 6 , 7 . O ve r t

he ne xt fe w m on ths , plaintiff submitted numerous PA waiver s for the third pa rties about whom he ha d reque sted
rec ords, in order

to allow the EOUSA to re lease the third parties’ rec ords. See id. ¶ 8. B etwee n J une 7, 2000 and Ma

rch 29, 2004, pla intiff submitt ed death cer tificates f or additional third parties ( in lieu of PA waiver s). See id. ¶ 9.

By letter of F ebrua

ry 10, 2004, the EOUSA infor med plaintiff that it was re jecting the PA waiver

that he had submitted for Richard J. Ferguson and for four other

third parties. See De f. F a c ts ¶

10 . In a le tte r d ate d M arc h 2 9, 20 04 , th e EO USAno tif ie d p la int if

f t hat it wo uld ho no r h is F OIA/ PA r e qu e st t o th e e xtent th at it so ug ht i nf

or matio n r e latin gto h ims e lf and to thi rd pa rt ie s f or wh om h e ha d s ub mitte d d e ath c e rt if ic ate s, but w a s r e

je c tin ga ll o f t

he PA waiver s. See id. ¶ 11. The EOUSA also advise d plaintiff that “[b]ecause w e have rec eived numerous letter s from you duringthe past two y ear s alteringy our F OIA re quest and/or na rrowing it, the scope of your re quest has bec ome ambiguous to us. Theref ore, w e re quest clar ification for the ty pe of r ecor ds y ou reque st on y ourself a nd the dec ease d individuals.” See id., Ex. AA at 2. B y le tte r o f A

pr il 2 0, 20 04 , p la int if

f r e sp on de d: “ Iam no w r e sp e c tf ull y re qu e sti nga ll inv e s ti g ati v e r e c o r d s an d

in f o r mati o no nmy s e lf

an d th e d e c e a s e d

in d iv id u a ls
. ” Se e id
. ¶

1 2 , E x. CC ( e mph a sis in o ri g ina l) . F ro m th at po int onwa rd , th e EO USAtr e ate d p la int if f’ s F OIA r e qu e st
as see king the investigative rec ords for himself a nd for the third pa

rties for whom he had submitt ed death cer

tificates. Ba sed upon plaintiff’s r efor mulated re quest, the USAO DN H shipped ele ven bo xes o f p ote nti a lly

re sp on siv e re c or ds to t

he EO USA , in c lud ing , amon goth e r t hin g s, a ll inv e sti g ativ e re c or ds c on ta ine d in the c ri min a l c a se fi le . Se e Mo t., De c laratio n o f K are n M
.4

Finneg an (“ First F inneg an De cl.”) ¶ 46. B y letter of June 8, 2004, the EOUSA infor med plaintiff that it had conducte d a sea rch of the re cords in its possession (the eleve n box es fr om the USAO DNH) pursuant to his April 20, 2004 letter a nd located a

pproxi mately

three box es (or

6,000 pag es) of responsive inve stigative rec ords, and a bout 120 pag es of r esponsive publically filed
rec ords. See De f. F acts ¶¶ 13-14; First F inneg an De cl. ¶ 46. The EOUSA fur ther infor med plaintiff that it would refe r these r ecor ds to the FB Ifor pr ocessingbefor e re lease to plaintiff. See Def . Fa cts ¶ 13. Plaintiff re sponded by letter of June 23, 2004, dec lining to pursue pr oduction of the publically

available rec ords, but stating that he did “wa nt to pursue the investig ative re cords.” See id. ¶ 15, Ex. FF.

By letter of Aug ust 9, 2004, the EOUSA informed pla intiff that it had “g ather ed
a ll i nv e sti g ativ e re c or ds and re fe rr e d th e m to the F B Ifo r r e vie w a nd pr oc e ssi ng .” Se e De f. F a c ts ¶ 1 6; M ot. , E x. GGat 1. Th e le tte r a lso e xpla ine d th at “ [t]his is t he fi na l a c tio n th is o ff

ic e wi ll take c oncer

ning your re quest,” a

nd informed plaintiff of

his right of

appea l. See Mot., Ex . GG at 2. Th e EO USAre fe rr e d a ll o f t he a pp ro ximate ly

6, 00 0 p a g e s o f i nv e sti g ativ e re c or ds po te nti a lly responsive to plaintiff’ s final formulation of his F OIA re quest to the FB Ifor pr ocessing . See Def . Fa cts ¶ 17. B oth defe ndant and plaintiff now move for summar

y judgme nt on the adequa cy of the EOU SA’s response to plaintiff’s FO I A re quest.
I I
. ST A N D A RD O F RE V I E W Th e Court

wi ll gra nt a mot ion fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt i f t

he ple a din g s, depositions, answers to interr og atories, a nd admissions on file, toge ther with af fidavits or de c laratio ns , s ho w that th e re is n o g e nu ine iss ue of mate ri a l f

a c t and that th e mov ingpa

rt y is5

entitled to judgment a s a matter of law. F ED . R. C IV . P. 56(c) . The movingparty bear s the burden of demonstratingthe abse nce of a g enuine issue of

materia l fac t. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). F actua l assertions in the moving pa rty ’s af fidavits or decla rations may

be ac cepte d as true unle ss the opposing pa rty submits hi s own aff

idavits or de c laratio ns or

do c ume nta

ry e vid e nc e to t

he c on tr ary . N e a l v. Ke lly , 9 63 F .2 d 4 53 , 4 56 (D .C. Cir. 1992). In a F OIA ca se, the Court may g rant summary

judgme nt based on the infor mation pr ov ide d in

a ff ida vit s o r d e c laratio ns wh e n th e a ff ida vit s o r d e c lara

tio ns de sc ri be “ the do c ume nts and the justifications for

nondisclosure with re asonably specific detail, demonstrate that the information withheld log ically falls within the claimed e x emption, and ar e not controve rted by
e ith e r c on tr ary

e vid e nc e in t

he re c or d n or

by e vid e nc e of

a g e nc y ba d f a ith .” Mil ita

ry Au dit Project v. Casey , 656 F.2d 724, 738 ( D.C. Cir. 1981); see a lso Hertzbergv. Vene man, 273 F.Supp.2d 67, 74 (D.D .C. 2003). Such aff idavits or decla

rations ar e ac corde d “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.’” Saf eCard Ser vs., Inc. v. Sec. & Ex ch. Comm’n, 926 F.2d 1 1 9 7 , 1 2 0 0 ( D
. C
. C i r . 1 9 9 1 ) ( qu o t i n gG r o un d S a u c e r W at c h , In c . v . C e n tr a l In t e l l i g e n c e A g e n c y, 692 F.2d 770, 771 ( D.C. Cir. 1981)).
I I I . DI SCUS SI ON

De fe nd ant m ov e s f

or pa rt ia l summa

ry jud g me nt o n th e g ro un d th at th e EO USA
c on du c te d a

n a de qu ate se arc h f

or re c or ds and

pr op e rl y re fe rr e d p ote nti a lly

re sp on siv e re c or ds to the FB Ifor pr ocessing . Plaintiff does not contest the ade quacy of the EOU SA’s sear ch for6

documents. Instead he challeng es the a g ency ’s fa ilure to produce those rec ords, ar g uing that the EOUSA impermissibly

narr owed the sc ope of his re quest and that it was inappr opriate f or the EOUSA to forw ard the rec ords to the FB Ifor pr ocessing
.

A. TheEO US

A D id N ot I na pp ro pr iate ly Nar ro w Pl ain tif f’ s F OI A R e qu est The F OIA re quires that a pa rty makinga re quest “re asonably descr ibe[] ” the
rec ords soug ht. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3) (A). H ere , afte r extensive corr espondenc e over a number of y e ars be tw e e n th e EO USAand pla int if f, the EO USAde te rm ine d th at “ the sc op e of [pla int if f’ s] reque st has become ambig uous to [ it] ,” and r equeste d that plaintiff clar ify his request. See Def

. F a c ts, Ex. A A at 2. Suc h a re qu e st f or c lari fi c atio n is a

pp ro pr iate wh e re a

re qu e st i s n ot s pe c if

ic enoug h to allow “a pr ofessional e mploy ee of the ag ency

who was f

amiliar with the subject a rea of t he re qu estto lo cat e th e reco rd w it h a re aso nab le a mo un t o f effo rt .” D ale v. I .R .S ., 23 8 F. Supp. 2d 99, 104 (D.D.C. 2002) (c itations omi tted). Plaintiff did not challeng e the a g ency ’s conclusion that the re quest had be come ambiguous, a nd instead cla

rified that “ Iam now respe ctfully

reque sting a ll investigative r ecor ds and information on my self and the dece ased individuals.” See De f. F acts ¶ 12, E x . CC (emphasis in origina l). Fr om that point on, the EOUSA limited its s ear ch and pr oduction to the investigative rec ords re lating to plaintiff a nd the de c e a se d in div idu a ls.

Th e EO USAe xpla ins that “ in a c c or da nc e wi th [i ts] inte rn a l pr a c tic e s, ” it interpre ted plaintiff’s c larifica tion requestinginvestigative rec ords to include all “r ecor ds cre ated by fe de ra l st ate and

loc a l inve sti g ativ e law e nf or c e me nt a g e nc ie s. Th is i s h owthe EO USA routinely interpre ts requests for

investigative rec ords.” See Rep., Second De clar ation of Ka ren7

M. Finneg an (“ Second F inneg an De cl.”) ¶ 8. The E OUSA’s interpr etation of “ investigative
rec ords” a

ppear s to the Court to have bee n made in g ood faith and satisfies the ag ency ’s obligations under the F OIA. See I sasi v. J ones, 594 F . Supp. 2d 1, 4-5 (D.D.C. 2009) ( “[t] he 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
rec ords’” ) (c iting Og lesby v. United States Dep’ t of the Army , 920 F.2d 57, 68 ( D.C. Cir. 1990)). Plaintiff’s challeng e to the EOU SA’s interpre tation of the term “ investigative
re c or ds ” a

pp e ars to b e little mor e tha n th e e xpre ssi on

of his wi shthat he ha d n ot n arr ow e d h is
re qu e st s o s ub sta

nti a lly . F or

e xamp le , p la int if

f s tate s th at hi s “ re qu e st o f ‘ inv e sti g ativ e re c or ds ’ of the EOU SA, as he unde rstood the term, wa s for re cords not pubicly -filed [sic] i n the docke t of the c a se .” Op p. , Pl a int if

f’ s Sta te me nt o f M ate ri a l F a c ts a s to Whic h T he re is a Ge nu ine Di sp ute ¶ 3. This interpre tation does not make sense , howeve r, in light of the common sense mea ning of the wo rd “ inv e sti g ativ e .” In c on tr a st, the EO USA ’s e xplanatio n f or its tr e atme nt o f t

he te rm is
re a so na ble : The U.S. Attorney ’s Off ices do not investig ate violations of c ri min a l and

c ivi l la ws , b ut i ns te a d, re ly

on the va ri ou s f e de ra l, state and loc a l inve sti g ativ e a g e nc ie s to un c ov e r v iol atio ns of U. S. l aw s f o r c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o nan d / o r f o r c i v i l a c t i o n . A c c o r d i n g l y, when Plaintiff advise d that he wa s interested in “ all investigative rec ords,” EO USA’s fa ir rea ding of that ref ormulated re quest was that he wa s seekingacc ess only to rec ords cr eate d by

the FB I
. . . and the state and

loc a l la w e nf or c e me nt a g e nc ie s th at ha d a ro le in inv e sti g atin ghim
. Second F inneg an De cl. ¶ 8. F urthermor e, plaintiff pr ovides no leg al support for his position other than that “these kinds of r ecor ds [t he 27 orig inal box es] are discove rable in a cr iminal
case ,” and the y

“ar e also, more or less, the same cate g ories of r ecor ds itemiz ed in Plaintiff’s ini tia l F OIA r e qu e st t o E OU SA. ” Op p. at 7. Pla int if f c ann ot a lle g e that th e a g e nc y fa ile d to8

pr od uc e re sp on siv e re c or ds , whe n th e re c or ds he no w i de nti fi e s f a ll o uts ide the sc op e of

his appropr iately

narr owed r equest. Cf. L ee v. United States Dep’t of J ustice, 235 F .R.D. 274, 285 (W.D. Pa. 2006) (EOU SA may ask F OIA re questor to nar row the sc ope of the reque st where reque st is “overbroa d”).

In addition, when plaintiff c larified his F OIA re quest for the EOUSA, he limited the re cords he was re questing to those relatingto “my self and the dece ased individuals.” De f. F a c ts ¶ 12 , E x. CC. Th e EO USAa pp ro pr iate ly

tr e ate d th is c lari fi c atio n a s e xclu din gre c or ds , which mig ht otherwise be responsive, that relate d to the still living individuals who had
su bmi tte d PAwa ive rs . T he re fo re , p la int if f’ s a sse rt ion s a s to the EO USA ’s re je c tio n o f t

he PA waiver s for Mr. F erguson and others who are not dece ased a re immaterial to the summary jud g me nt b ri e fi ngbe c a

us e re c or ds re latin gto t

ho se ind ivi du a ls f

e ll o uts ide the sc op e of

his
narr owed r equest. B. The EOUSA Prope rly Forwarded the ResponsiveRec ords to the FBI for Processing.

Plaintiff challeng es the EOU SA’s decision to forw ard pote ntially responsive documents to the F BI

for r eview a

nd proce ssing pr ior to relea se. In support of its decision to do so, the EOUSA re lies on Depa rtment of Just ice r egulations which provide: When a component r ece ives a re quest for a rec ord in its possession, it shall determine whe ther a nother c omponent, or anothe r ag ency of the F eder al Gover

nment, is better able to determine whether the rec ord is exempt from disclosure under the FO I A and, if so, whether it should be disclosed as a matter of administrative dis c re tio n. I f t

he re c e ivi ngc omp on e nt d e te rm ine s th at it is n ot b e st a ble to p ro c e ss t

he re c or d, the n it

sh a ll .
. . [r]e fe r t

he re sp on sib ili ty for r espondingto the reque st reg ardingthat rec ord to the c omp on e nt b e st a

ble to d e te rm ine wh e the r t o d isc los e it, or to another ag ency that orig inated the r ecor d. . . . Ordinar ily , the9 c omp on e nt o r a g e nc y

that or ig inate d a

re c or d w ill be pr e sume d to be be st a ble to d e te rm ine wh e the r t o d isc los e it. 28 C.F .R. § 1 6. 4( c )( 2) . In h e r f ir st d e c laratio n, Ka

re n F inn e g an e xpla ins that a ft e r t he EO USA identified the re sponsive investigative rec ords, it determined that they had all orig inated with the FB I . See F irst Finneg an De cl. ¶ 51. B ased on 28 C.F .R. § 16.4(c)( 2), the EOU SA decided that be c a us e the F B Iha d o ri g inate d th e re c or ds , it wo uld be be st a ble to d e te rm ine wh e the r t he y mus t be disclosed unde r the F OIA. Acc ording ly , the EOUSA re fer red a ll of the investigative rec ords to t he F B Ifo r r e vie w a

nd pr oc e ssi ng . Se e F ir st F inn e g an D e c l. ¶ 51 . T he de c lara

tio n b y Ms. Finneg an is ac corde d “a pr esumption of g ood faith,” a nd plaintiff has g iven the Court no re ason to doubt Ms. Finneg an’s e x planation, or the de cision to forwa rd the doc uments to the FB Ifor proce ssing. See Voinche v. F BI , 412 F. Supp. 2d at 64-65 ( quoting Saf eCard Ser vs. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197, 1200 ( D.C. Cir. 1991)). See a lso Key s v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec ., 570 F. Supp. 2d 59, 66-67 (D.D .C. 2008), remande d on other grounds , 2008 U.S. App. L EXI S 23351 at *1 (“a n ag ency may adopt proc edure s by

which docume nts in the ag ency ’s possession, but which did not orig inate with the ag ency , may be re fer red to the or iginating a g ency for pr ocessing ”) ( citing McGe hee v. C.I .A., 697 F.2d 1095, 1110 ( D.C. Cir. 1983)).

In addition, plaintiff did not administ ratively appea l the EOUSA’s re fer ral of
re sp on siv e re c or ds to t

he F B Ifo r p ro c e ssi ng . Se e De f F a c ts ¶ 16 . F or F OIA r e qu e ste rs , “[e]x haustion of administrative re medies is g ener ally require d befor e filingsuit in federa l court
so that th e a g e nc y

ha s an o pp or

tun ity to e xer c ise its dis c re tio n a nd e xpe rt ise on

the matte r a

nd to make a fac tual rec ord to support its decision.” Hidalg o v. FB I , 344 F.3d 1256, 1258 ( D.C. Cir. 2003) (quotingOg lesby

v. United States Dep’ t of the Army , 920 F.2d at 61). I t is appropriate forB e c a us e the Court

fi nd s th at de fe nd ant E OU SA h a s n ot v iol ate d th e F OIA, it a lso 4 finds that plaintiff has no ba sis for obtaininga dec laratory judgme nt ag ainst the EOUSA pursua nt to the Dec laratory

J udg ment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a) (Count I I Iof plaintiff’s c omplaint). 10 the Court to consider only those aspec ts of plaintiff’s re quest which he proper ly exhausted. See L air v. De pt of Tre asury , Civil Action No. 03-0827, 2005 WL645228 at *3-4 (D .D.C. Marc h 21, 20 05 ) ( on ly

the iss ue s r a ise d b y

pla int if f i n a dmi nis tr ativ e a

pp e a ls o f t

he a g e nc y ’s re sp on se to h is F OIA r e qu e st w e re pr op e rl y be fo re the Court ). Pla int if f’ s f a ilure to a dmi nis tr ativ e ly

e xha us t with respec t to the refe rra l of his rec ords to the FB Iwould bar his cla im, even if it wer e
me ri tor iou s. Th e Court

fi nd s th at th e EO USAha s satis fi e d it s o bli g atio ns wi th r e sp e c t to pla int if f’ s F OIA r e qu e st. 4
C. Plainti ff Does Not Have a Right to Relief Unde r the Administrative ProcedureAct Plaintiff asserts that he is see king material that should have been pr oduced a nd made a vailable to him at his criminal trial under Br ady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). B e c a us e thi s a lle g e d f

a ilure to d isc los e e xcu lpator y e vid e nc e imp lic ate s h is c on sti tut ion a l r ig hts , pla int if f a rgue s th at he ha s a

c la im und e r t

he Ad min ist rativ e Pr oc e dure Ac t ( “ APA ” ), 5 U .S. C. §§ 70 1, e t se q. , whic h p ro vid e s th e Court wi th j ur isd ic tio n to re vie w a g e nc y a c tio n “ c on tr ary

to
c on sti tut ion a l r ig ht, po we r, pr ivi le g e , o r i mmunit y .” 5 U .S. C. § 70 6( 2) (B ). B ut t he APA provides for

judicial revie w of fina l ag ency action only

wher e “the re is no other

adequate re medy in a cour t.” 5 U.S.C. § 704. Pl aintiff’s c laim that the EOUSA improper ly withheld ag ency
rec ords that wer e re sponsive to his FOIA re quest is, of course , revie wable unde r the F OIA itself. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a) (4)( B) . Acc ording ly , plaintiff does not also have acc ess to judicial revie w under the APA. See Phy sicians Comm. for Responsible Med. v. De p’t of He alth and Human11

S e r v s . , 4 8 0 F
. S u

p p . 2 d 1 1 9 , 1 2 1 n . 2 ( D
. D
. C
. 2 0 0 7 ) ( n o A P A r e v i e we x i s t s f o r d e n i a l o f F O IA fee waiver

reque st, beca

use re medy

is provided for unde r the F OIA); Thomas v. F eder al Aviation Ad min ., Civ il A c tio n N o. 05 -2 39 1, 20 07 WL21 99 88 at *3 (D .D .C. Janu ary 25 , 2 00 7) (n o A PA revie w is available when plaintiff ha s a re medy under the FOIA); Edmonds Inst. v. United States De p’ t of Inte ri or , 3 83 F . Su

pp . 2 d 1 05 , 1 11 (D .D .C. 20 05 ) ( “ re vie w und e r t he APAis unava ila

ble when [the FO I A] provides an ade quate r emedy”).
I V CONCLUSI ON For the forg oing r easons, the Court will g rant de fenda nt’s motion for partial
summa ry jud g me nt a s to a ll c la ims a g a ins t th e EO USA . T he Court wi ll d e ny pla int if f’ s c ro ssmot ion fo r p art ia l summa

ry jud g me nt. An

Or de r c on sis te nt w iththi s O pin ion wi ll i ssu e thi s same da y . /s/_____________________________ PAULL . FRI EDMAN Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge DATE: Mar ch 30, 2009