Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/684/121/40706/
Timestamp: 2019-11-21 11:06:41
Document Index: 340097158

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 552', '§ 552', '§ 2713', '§ 552', '§ 552', '§ 552', '§ 552']

Charles E. Perry, Appellant, v. John R. Block, Secretary of Agriculture, et al, 684 F.2d 121 (D.C. Cir. 1982) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › D.C. Circuit › 1982 › Charles E. Perry, Appellant, v. John R. Block, Secretary of Agriculture, et al
Charles E. Perry, Appellant, v. John R. Block, Secretary of Agriculture, et al, 684 F.2d 121 (D.C. Cir. 1982)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit - 684 F.2d 121 (D.C. Cir. 1982) Argued April 19, 1982. Decided July 30, 1982
In April of 1980, counsel for appellant again wrote the Secretary of Agriculture, demanding production under the FOIA and the Privacy Act of the information sought in the initial letter of March 1979.8 The FmHA's FOIA Officer responded by advising appellant that the information he sought was held by the North Dakota United States Attorney and suggesting that Perry contact the office of the federal prosecutor there.9 On May 9, 1980, counsel for appellant lodged with the Executive Office for United States Attorneys a formal request for the documents based on the FOIA and the Privacy Act.10 In early July, the Acting Director of that office denied the request, citing the law enforcement investigatory files exemption to the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b) (7) (A) (1976).11 Although not necessary in light of the Justice Department delays, Perry subsequently exhausted available administrative remedies in seeking the documents.
Appellant posits a variety of challenges to the government actions in this case, only two of which merit discussion here. We would simply note at this juncture that, however fitful or delayed the release of information under the FOIA may be, once all requested records are surrendered, federal courts have no further statutory function to perform. Although "(t)here may very well be circumstances in which prolonged delay in making information available or unacceptably onerous opportunities for viewing disclosed information require judicial intervention," Lybarger v. Cardwell, 577 F.2d 764, 767 (1st Cir. 1978), the case at bar does not mandate such court action. Under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a) (4) (B), a federal court is authorized only to "enjoin the agency from withholding agency records and to order the production of any agency records improperly withheld ...." Thus, "(o)nce the records are produced the substance of the controversy disappears and becomes moot since the disclosure which the suit seeks has already been made." Crooker v. United States State Department, 628 F.2d 9, 10 (D.C. Cir. 1980). We are not authorized to make advisory findings of legal significance on the character of the agency conduct vis-a-vis any requester of information. In sum, if we are convinced that appellees have, however belatedly, released all nonexempt material, we have no further judicial function to perform under the FOIA.19
Since the district judge considered matters outside the pleadings in disposing of the litigation, we properly treat this case as one in which a motion for summary judgment was granted. George C. Frey Ready-Mixed Concrete, Inc. v. Pine Hill Concrete Mix Corp., 554 F.2d 551, 554 (2d Cir. 1977); Gray v. Greyhound Lines, East, 545 F.2d 169, 174 (D.C. Cir. 1976); 10 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 2713 at 391-92 (1973 & 1982 Supp.). We test the propriety of the grant of such a motion by the well-known standards of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. In a FOIA case, as in all others in the federal system, " '(s)ummary judgment may be granted only if the moving party proves that no substantial and material facts are in dispute and that (movant) is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.' " Founding Church of Scientology v. National Security Agency, 610 F.2d 824, 836 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (quoting National Cable Television Association, Inc. v. FCC, 479 F.2d 183, 186 (D.C. Cir. 1973)).
To meet this exacting standard in a FOIA suit, the "defending agency must prove that each document that falls within the class requested either has been produced, is unidentifiable, or is wholly exempt from the (FOIA's) inspection requirements." National Cable Television, 479 F.2d at 186. The peculiarities inherent in FOIA litigation, with the responding agencies often in sole possession of requested records and with information searches conducted only by agency personnel, have led federal courts to rely on government affidavits to determine whether the statutory obligations of the FOIA have been met. Accordingly, "in adjudicating the adequacy of the agency's identification and retrieval efforts, the trial court may be warranted in relying upon agency affidavits, for these 'are equally trustworthy when they aver that all documents have been produced or are unidentifiable as when they aver that identified documents are exempt.' " Founding Church of Scientology, 610 F.2d at 836 (quoting Goland v. CIA, 607 F.2d 339, 352 (D.C. Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 927, 100 S. Ct. 1312, 63 L. Ed. 2d 759 (1980)).
Reliance on affidavits to demonstrate agency compliance with the mandate of the FOIA does not, however, require courts to accept glib government assertions of complete disclosure or retrieval. Rather, to ground a grant of summary judgment on the basis of agency protestations of compliance, the supporting affidavits "must be 'relatively detailed' and nonconclusory and must be submitted in good faith." Goland, 607 F.2d at 352 (footnote omitted) (quoting Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820, 826 (D.C. Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 977, 94 S. Ct. 1564, 39 L. Ed. 2d 873 (1974)). Finally, as appellant argues, "if the sufficiency of the agency's identification or retrieval procedure is genuinely in issue, summary judgment is not in order." Founding Church of Scientology, 610 F.2d at 836 (footnote omitted). Perry submits that the adequacy of the federal retrieval process is genuinely at issue in this case. Specifically, appellant challenges the adequacy of the searches carried out by agency officials in response to his FOIA requests and the sufficiency of the descriptions of those searches.
Although the offhand treatment appellees accorded Perry was by any measure unfortunate, we agree with the district court that summary judgment in the government's favor was appropriate. Appellees submitted for the consideration of the trial judge three affidavits of federal officials describing the searches for records that transpired, albeit belatedly, in response to Perry's requests. In Weisberg v. Department of Justice, 627 F.2d 365, 371 (D.C. Cir. 1980), and in Founding Church of Scientology, 610 F.2d at 836-37, we stated that affidavits setting forth the record procurement efforts of an agency should provide some detailing of the scope of the examination conducted. We do not believe, however, that the district judge's ruling in the case at bar violated either the spirit or the letter of the Weisberg and Founding Church of Scientology decisions.
Appellant's challenge to the adequacy of the government affidavits is, we believe, based on a misreading of these FOIA precedents. Neither Weisberg nor Founding Church of Scientology demands in every FOIA case that the affidavits of the responding agency set forth with meticulous documentation the details of an epic search for the requested records. Rather, in the absence of countervailing evidence or apparent inconsistency of proof, affidavits that explain in reasonable detail the scope and method of the search conducted by the agency will suffice to demonstrate compliance with the obligations imposed by the FOIA. In considering a challenge to an agency's retrieval procedures, a reviewing court must thus determine whether the materials submitted by the agency satisfactorily demonstrate the apparent adequacy of the search conducted. Where the agency's responses raise serious doubts as to the completeness of the search or are for some other reason unsatisfactory, summary judgment in the government's favor would usually be inappropriate. See Exxon Corp. v. FTC, 466 F. Supp. 1088, 1094 (D.D.C. 1978), aff'd, 663 F.2d 120 (D.C. Cir. 1980).
We have noted above that the affidavits submitted by the government in this case, though perhaps somewhat summary, set forth with sufficient detail a reasonably thorough search for the requested information. See supra pp. 127-128. With regard to the second argument, it is clear that appellees' delayed reaction to appellant's document demands "evidences a lack of vigor, if not candor, in responding to (Perry's) FOIA requests." Goland, 607 F.2d 367, 370 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (opinion on rehearing). In the final analysis, however, appellant offers only the unsupported allegation that appellant's cumulative search efforts were insufficient as a matter of law to ground a ruling of summary judgment in the government's favor. Perry has presented no specific argument or evidence suggesting that solicited but undisclosed information remains in agency files. The issue is not whether any further documents might conceivably exist but rather whether the government's search for responsive documents was adequate. See id. at 369. Given the dearth of evidence presented by appellant suggesting the inadequacy of the retrieval process, we are unable to say that the district judge was incorrect in relying on the agency affidavits in question, even given the delays in document provision.
Appellant claimed in the district court a right to "actual damages suffered as a result of the government's willful or intentional failure" to comply with the Privacy Act.25 Although the contours of his claim are a bit difficult to discern, appellant apparently contends that the release by the agency appellees of inaccurate information regarding him, as well as the delayed surrender of that information, constituted violations of the Privacy Act giving rise to a claim for damages. As appellant notes, 5 U.S.C. §§ 552a(g) (1) (C) and (D) (1976) provide an individual with a cause of action against an agency that, inter alia, maintains inaccurate or incomplete records, the subsequent dissemination of which affects the individual adversely. But the United States is liable for damages for violations of subsections (C) and (D) only when the agency "acted in a manner which was intentional or willful ...." 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g) (4) (1976). See, e.g., Parks v. IRS, 618 F.2d 677, 683 (10th Cir. 1980); Zeller v. United States, 467 F. Supp. 487, 503 (E.D.N.Y. 1979).
Appellant's Privacy Act claim must fail. As appellees note, no evidence submitted by Perry suggests that the actions of the government in this case, however disjointed or confused, were willful or deliberate in the sense demanded by the Privacy Act. There is no demonstration whatsoever of any alleged inaccuracies in the records assembled and disseminated by appellees. Nor does anything in the record demonstrate the existence of any "adverse effect" on appellant following as a result of the supposed Privacy Act violations, as required by both subsections (C) and (D) of section 552a(g) (1). Although in certain cases a claim for damages for delayed release of covered information might lie under the Privacy Act, the record before us reveals only that requested documents were disclosed in a delayed fashion through administrative oversight. The district judge thus properly dismissed appellant's claim for damages under the Privacy Act.
We note that 5 U.S.C. § 552(a) (4) (F) (Supp. III 1979) directs the Merit Systems Protection Board's Special Counsel to initiate an investigation to determine whether disciplinary action is warranted in response to the improper withholding of nonexempt records under the FOIA by an agency officer or employee. Such an investigation is directed, however, only when the court in question (1) orders the production of the withheld records and (2) issues written findings suggesting that the "circumstances surrounding the withholding raise questions whether agency personnel acted arbitrarily or capriciously ...." 5 U.S.C. § 552(a) (4) (F) (Supp. III 1979). While this process is arguably advisory in nature, the statutory language makes it clear that it is to be employed only when "the court orders the production of any agency records improperly withheld ...." See Lovell v. Alderete, 630 F.2d 428, 431 (5th Cir. 1980); Emery v. Laise, 421 F. Supp. 91, 92 (D.D.C. 1976). No such order was, of course, issued in this case