Opinion ID: 4514230
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Screwdriver Records

Text: We first address appellant’s argument that the Bureau’s response to the request for records related to the screwdriver was inadequate because it reasonably described the records sought and did not ask the Bureau to create new records or answer questions. We disagree and affirm the decision of the district court. Nothing in the record refutes the Bureau’s repeated assertions that it knows nothing about the screwdriver and has no records responsive to Evans’s demands. Appellant argues that by framing the requests related to the screwdriver as seeking answers to questions and thus refusing to conduct a search in the first place, the Bureau shirked its responsibility to conduct a search for the records under FOIA. Appellant asserts that, even if the request was phrased as a 11 question, the Bureau may only refrain from producing documents “if doing so would require creating a new record.” Amicus Curiae Br. in Support of Plaintiff-Appellant at 34. Further, appellant contends that the initial request and the reformulated request should be construed together. Because the Bureau estimated the cost to conduct a search in response to his initial request, appellant argues that it necessarily understood the request and believed responsive documents to exist. Thus, his narrower reformulated request could have been satisfied with production of the same types of records. Even if Evans’s original and reformulated requests are read together, they are insufficient. While appellant correctly points out that the Bureau cannot refuse to conduct a search simply because a request is framed as a question, the more relevant issue, as noted above, is whether Evans reasonably described documents that the Bureau has in fact created and retained. See Kowalczyk, 73 F.3d at 388. This turns, at least in part, on whether the screwdriver was prison property in the first place. But the Bureau has claimed in this case and in prior related proceedings that it did not own the screwdriver and that Evans’s assumptions to the contrary are flawed. Appellee’s Br. at 11; Evans, 2016 WL 4581339, at ; Cunningham, 2016 WL 3951157, at . In fact, when Evans included the picture of the screwdriver in his reformulated request, the Bureau sent the photo to FCI Gilmer officials who responded that they did not recognize the screwdriver, leaving them “unable to ascertain what records to search.” J.A. 43; Evans, 2016 WL 4581339, at ; Cunningham, 2016 WL 3951157, at . The request was thus presented to professional employees of the Bureau who are familiar with the subject area of the request, but those officials were unable to determine what records to search with a 12 reasonable amount of effort. See Dale v. IRS, 238 F. Supp. 2d 99, 104 (D.D.C. 2002). Moreover, even when the two requests are construed together, the reality is that Evans’s reformulated request fundamentally altered his initial request. In an effort to reduce the costs of responding to his request, Evans abandoned his broad requests for shipping logs, delivery logs, and maintenance equipment information over a span of ten years. Instead, he narrowed his request to seek only documents specifically related to a particular screwdriver. Indeed, records not containing information related to that screwdriver might not have been considered responsive to Evans’s request. In light of the Bureau’s affidavit stating that FCI Gilmer officials did not recognize the screwdriver referenced above, it was necessarily unable to produce responsive records. Appellant has provided us with no reason to doubt the veracity of the prison officials’ response, nor has he presented anything to convince us that the screwdriver must have been prison property. As far as we know, it is entirely plausible that the prison officials did not recognize the screwdriver because it was not prison property. Prisoners are capable of smuggling contraband into prison, including weapons and other materials. See, e.g., Bame v. Dillard, 637 F.3d 380, 385 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (noting that “[s]muggling of money, drugs, weapons, and other contraband is all too common an occurrence” in detention facilities (quoting Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 559–60 (1979) (alteration in original))). Without any evidence beyond unfounded claims speculating that the screwdriver was prison property or that the Bureau’s response should not otherwise be accorded the presumption of good faith, the Bureau’s efforts to identify the screwdriver by contacting prison officials and its statement that it was unable to conduct a search for responsive records because the prison officials did not possess such a tool 13 are sufficient to support the grant of summary judgment. See SafeCard Servs., Inc., 926 F.2d at 1200. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment as it relates to Evans’s request for screwdriver records.