Opinion ID: 1027758
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Adequacy of the Searches

Text: R & HW first argue the Agencies' searches for the requested documents were insufficient. They assert the Agencies improperly relied on the results of a search conducted in response to existing FOIA requests from other entities (the Media requests) instead of performing new searches tailored to the specific material R & HW sought. They also point to references in documents the Agencies did provide to contend that numerous other responsive documents exist but have not been provided or claimed as exempt. In addition, they contend the produced documents and the Agencies' declarations show that the Agencies failed to search certain offices likely to have responsive documents. The FOIA requires governmental agencies to provide, upon request, information to the public if the request reasonably describes the record sought and is made in accordance with published agency guidelines for making such requests. § 552(a)(3)(A). In responding ... to a request for records, an agency shall make reasonable efforts to search for the records in electronic form or format. ... § 552(a)(3)(C). The requirement to search means to review, manually or by automated means, agency records for the purpose of locating those records which are responsive to a request. § 552(a)(3)(D). The Rein request, submitted prior to the Hunton & Williams request, sought document[s], including emails or telephone logs, constituting, reflecting or relating to any internal or external written or oral communications between certain categories of individuals relating to the USPTO's reexaminations of the Campana Patents, and which were dated (or sent, issued, or received) on or after January 1, 2002. It also requested any documents regarding all other FOIA requests related to the Campana patents; the policies and procedures used by the USPTO during the reexaminations of the Campana patents; communications between USPTO and NTP's attorney, a New York Times reporter, and securities analysts; and documents to identify the chain of authority within USPTO during the reexaminations of the Campana patents. (J.A. 20-25.) The USPTO submitted responses to interrogatories, as well as declarations by Robert Fawcett, the USPTO's FOIA Officer, which detail the nature and scope of the searches it performed in response to R & HW's requests. Upon receiving Rein's FOIA request, Fawcett determined that it appeared to ask for the same broadly-defined records sought in the Media requests. [9] Accordingly, he decided to process the Rein and Media requests together, and considered materials responsive to the Media requests as also being responsive to the Rein request. The USPTO search pursuant to the Media request was sent to the six offices Fawcett determined were likely to have any responsive documents: the Office of the Director, the Office of External Affairs, the Solicitors' Office, the Office of Patents Operations, the Office of Public Affairs, and the Office of General Counsel. Fawcett decided not to send the search request to other departments because they had no reasonable connection to the NTP patents and patent reexaminations. [10] (J.A. 171.). The search methods contained in the request were crafted to maximize the inclusion of as many responsive documents as possible by requesting employees to conduct thorough paper and electronic searches using: (1) the FOIA request(s) provided to them; (2) an electronic keyword search list that [Fawcett] provided that included cues found in the basic FOIA requests such as law firm names, company names, relevant patent numbers, federal agency names, as well as several additional related words or phrases [Fawcett] conceived for the search request that were not specifically mentioned in any of the FOIA requests, but might have produced responsive records, (e.g., isolated terms such as NTP, and alternate spellings such as []Re-Exam, for Reexamination etc.)[ [11] ]; and (3) instructions to employ any other conceivable search formulation not listed in the search request that might turn up responsive documents. In addition, employees were instructed to provide any and all other documentation relating to the NTP reexamination that was not specifically described in the FOIA requests, but which was responsive to the topic of interest expressed therein. The list of search terms provided was by no means all-inclusive, and individuals were instructed not to limit searches to only the above-listed keywords. Examples of variations in search terms and potentially responsive communications were provided, and individuals were instructed to perform electronic searches using all spelling variants and accounting for misspellings. (J.A. 266-67, 841-43.) Searches were also performed on remnants of e-mail accounts of several former [USPTO] employees ... who might have had any connection to the items sought in the Media requests. (J.A. 170-72, 824, 897.) Fawcett personally supervised some of the searches in the Office of the Director and with the Records Officer as a spotchecking measure to ensure that search instructions were being followed and the methods employed were adequate. He also consulted with other FOIA coordinators to monitor the status of searches and identify possible additional locations of responsive records. (J.A. 172.) Subsequent to providing Rein three interim disclosures of responsive documents, Fawcett re-examined the Rein request and determined that the request appeared to specify a few additional items that may not have been definitively included in the search conducted pursuant to the Media requests. He decided to send a broadened search request to three of the offices that had received the original search (the Offices of External Affairs, Patent Operations, and General Counsel), as well as to the Office of the Under Secretary (who had not received the original request). Although this supplemental search request is not part of the record, Fawcett stated that it specifically addressed items in the Rein request that were not part of the Media requests, including Rein's request for communications with RIM's legal representatives and other specific third-parties, policies and procedures used during the reexamination, and status requests regarding the reexamination process. The Hunton & Williams FOIA request also sought information regarding the reexaminations of the Campana patents, and requested documents containing or referencing communications between DOC employees and certain individuals or entities. It also requested all documents regarding the schedule and timing of proceedings and final office actions related to the Campana patent reexaminations. The Hunton & Williams request specifically sought an unredacted version of the email dated January 1, 2005 from Mr. Theodore Kassinger to Mr. Jon Dudas concerning a meeting with RIM. (J.A. 62.) Lastly, it requested all CDs, DVDs, tapes and other electronic media storage devices, or hard copy printouts or transcripts from any of the above, that are in the possession of DOC that were provided to it by anyone affiliated with RIM. (J.A. 63-64.) Brenda Dolan, the DOC's FOIA director, received Hunton & Williams's request, but decided to transfer primary responsibility for handling the request to the USPTO because the USPTO is the only agency within the [DOC] that maintains patent and trademark information. (J.A. 280.) Dolan determined the only part of the DOC apart from the USPTO that would have responsive documents was within the Immediate Office of the Secretary, because of the office's substantive contact with the USPTO. (J.A. 280-81.) Roberta Parsons, the FOIA officer for the Immediate Office of the Secretary submitted a declaration stating that upon receiving Hunton & Williams's request, she sent it to the offices most likely to have responsive documents, the Executive Secretariat, the Office of the General Counsel, the Office of Finance and Litigation, and the Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs. [12] (J.A. 738-39.) She instructed them to conduct a thorough search for final documents[,] drafts, notes, photographs, e-mails, audio, and videos concerning RIM, NTP, Blackberry, the Campana patents, the reexaminations of the Campana patents, and the subsequent litigation between RIM and NTP. Current employees conducted the requested searches, and the records of former employees were also searched. All responsive documents discovered during the search were sent to the USPTO for exemption and disclosure determinations. Fawcett handled the Hunton & Williams request at the USPTO, and determined that it reached to all documents that were previously requested in the Media requests and the Rein request. (J.A. 175-77.) He then directed three officesthe Solicitor's Office, the Commissioner for Patents, and the Office of the Directorto search for documents that were identified in the Hunton & Williams request and which did not duplicate materials sought in the Media or Rein requests. In addition, individuals in these offices were asked to conduct new and updated searches to determine if there are new items that were not a part of your previous searches for Campana documents. (J.A. 242.) A copy of the Hunton & Williams request was attached to Fawcett's directive. Fawcett stated that when he received documents pursuant to any of the FOIA requests, he reviewed them to determine whether they were actually responsive to the requests, removed duplicate documents, and sought to determine whether any of the documents should be redacted or withheld based on any FOIA exemptions. He also followed up with some units when he discovered incomplete searches had been performed, or that e-mails were missing attachments. In a supplemental declaration, Fawcett stated that several months after the complaints were filed, it came to his attention that Krista Zele, a USPTO special program examiner, had not received the Media, Rein, or Hunton & Williams search requests even though her name was on the list of recipients for the Media requests. Fawcett provided her with copies of all three search requests, and she performed the relevant searches. Fawcett stated that [t]o the best of [his] knowledge, the omission in not providing Ms. Zele with the requests was an oversight. [13] (J.A. 274-75.) Fawcett further explained that although Jin Ng, the director of Technology Center 2600, where Zele worked, was not deemed to possess responsive documents and was, therefore, not named in the search request, (J.A. 275), Ng should have forwarded the request to Zele, which inadvertently had not happened. Zele, in turn, informed Fawcett that Dwayne Bost, another special program examiner in her unit, may also have responsive documents. Bost conducted a search as well. Fawcett reviewed the documents Zele and Bost provided to him, determined that many were duplicates or non-responsive, and some were exempt. The remaining documents identified by Zele and Bost were then provided to R & HW. On this record, we conclude the district court did not err in finding the USPTO and DOC fulfilled their obligations under the FOIA to perform a search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents. We begin with the guiding principle that the FOIA does not require a perfect search, only a reasonable one. See Meeropol v. Meese, 790 F.2d 942, 956 (D.C.Cir.1986) ([A] search need not be perfect, only adequate, and adequacy is measured by the reasonableness of the effort in light of the specific request.). This Court's discussion in Ethyl Corporation is instructive: In judging the adequacy of an agency search for documents the relevant question is not whether every single potentially responsive document has been unearthed, but whether the agency has demonstrated that it has conducted a search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents. In demonstrating the adequacy of its search, [an agency may rely on an] affidavit [that is] reasonably detailed, setting forth the search terms and the type of search performed, and averring that all files likely to contain responsive materials (if such records exist) were searched so as to give the requesting party an opportunity to challenge the adequacy of the search. 25 F.3d at 1246-47 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). [14] The USPTO's decision to use the searches conducted in response to the Media requests as the starting point for responding to the R & HW requests was not inherently unreasonable and appears to be a practical and common-sense approach. The requests sought similar information related to the same subject matter. In creating the initial search, the Agencies determined which offices and individuals likely possessed responsive documents, and then sent detailed and expansive instructions for conducting the search. Those instructions set forth non-exclusive search suggestions responsive to information also sought in R & HW's requests. Furthermore, the Agencies' search requests were submitted to the offices and individuals deemed most likely to possess responsive information. Offices and individuals that were not included were specifically believed not to possess responsive materials. Substantial portions of the requests overlapped, and wholly new and independent searches for each request would be duplicative and without a discernible benefit. Simply put, the FOIA did not require the USPTO to perform an entirely new, duplicative search for each request. Moreover, although the Agencies relied on the Media requests as the starting point for responding to the R & HW requests, that did not end their search for responsive information. Fawcett stated that the Agencies also independently reviewed each of the FOIA requests and identified areas where the requests differed. The USPTO then sent out additional instructions to relevant offices in order to encompass aspects of the R & HW requests that were not covered by the initial search. The DOC independently searched in accordance with the Hunton & Williams request. Thus, while the search requests substantially overlapped, the record is clear that the Agencies conducted additional, narrower searches tailored to each of the requests. We also do not find persuasive R & HW's argument that the Agencies' searches were inadequate because responsive documents refer to other documents that were not produced. In support of its argument, R & HW cites as examples certain communications, documents, and a CD-ROM that it claims the Agencies' searches failed to produce. R & HW do not contend, nor can we discern, that the Agencies were compelled to expand the search terms they used in order to discover the materials R & HW claim should have been found. Instead, R & HW simply assert that the Agencies' searches were inadequate because they failed to produce these documents. However, as noted above, the relevant inquiry is not whether the Agencies' search uncovered every potentially responsive document, but whether the search was reasonably calculated to discover responsive documents. See Maynard, 986 F.2d at 559 (The crucial issue is not whether relevant documents might exist, but whether the agency's search was `reasonably calculated to discover the requested documents.'). A reasonably calculated search does not require that an agency search every file where a document could possibly exist, but rather requires that the search be reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances. See SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. Sec. and Exch. Comm'n, 926 F.2d 1197, 1201 (D.C.Cir.1991). The Agencies' failure to produce certain specific documents does not, of itself, yield the conclusion that the search was inadequate. We also reject R & HW's contention that Zele's and Bost's initial failure to perform the requested searches renders the entire search suspect. When the USPTO found out that Zele inadvertently had not received the search requests, the USPTO required that she perform searches responsive to the R & HW requests. And when Zele informed Fawcett that Bost likely had responsive materials as well, Bost also received the requests and conducted the searches. These efforts demonstrate the USPTO's good faith in conducting a thorough search to comply with FOIA. See Oglesby v. U.S. Dep't of the Army, 920 F.2d 57, 68 (D.C.Cir.1990) (stating that an agency's duty is to make a good faith effort to conduct a search for the requested records.). Where an oversight occurred, the USPTO explained the reason for the mistake and took appropriate steps to correct it so that all individuals known or believed to possess responsive materials performed the searches. R & HW also identify three Agency units that purportedly never received any search requests: the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) and Technology Central 2600, both in the USPTO, and the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) in the DOC. The record shows that Lissi Marquis, the director of the CRU, was among those individuals who were told they must perform the initial Rein search. Pursuant to USPTO policy, she was also directed to forward the search request to other individuals in her unit who worked on the Campana patents and reexaminations. It is reasonable to infer from Fawcett's affidavits, the credibility of which we have no reason to doubt, that Marquis and therefore the CRUwas not asked to perform any of the supplemental searches because Fawcett determined she would not have documents responsive beyond the initial searches. The USPTO avers that Jin Ng, the director of Technology Center 2600, was deemed not to have responsive material and therefore was not asked to conduct any searches. Zele and Bost, the two individuals at Technology Center 2600 the USPTO knew or learned would have responsive material, ultimately performed the requested search. [15] R & HW speculate, without any specific basis for doing so, that the entire Technology Center 2600 unit should have been required to search simply because some individuals in those units had responsive materials, or were mentioned in other responsive documents. The FOIA does not require the Agencies to search every employee so long as the searches are reasonably calculated to discover responsive materials. Cf. Ethyl Corp., 25 F.3d at 1246-47. R & HW have failed to raise substantial doubt as to the adequacy of the Agencies' searches, which were targeted to the specific individuals and units they believed would likely possess documents responsive to R & HW's request. R & HW also cite the DOC's failure to search for documents responsive to the Hunton & Williams request in the BIS. To support their contention that BIS should have been searched for responsive documents, R & HW submitted e-mails produced during a FOIA request submitted to the Department of Justice. Those e-mails show correspondence to and from individuals in BIS discussing the litigation between NTP and RIM. The Hunton & Williams search request did not specifically request the DOC to search the BIS. The DOC provided no explanation of why BIS was specifically not searched, although it is reasonable to conclude from Parson's declaration that BIS was not deemed to possess responsive documents. See Campbell v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 164 F.3d 20, 28 (D.C.Cir.1998). [16] The Agencies were not required to look beyond the four corners of R & HW's requests when formulating their searches, nor were they required to chase rabbit trails that may appear in documents uncovered during their search. Instead, it was the Agencies responsibility to develop a search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents, based on R & HW's requests. This they have done. If R & HW discover leads in the documents produced as a result of their FOIA requests, they may pursue those leads through a second FOIA request specifying locations to be searched. See Kowalczyk v. Dep't of Justice, 73 F.3d 386, 389 (D.C.Cir.1996). Accordingly, we hold the district court did not err in concluding the Agencies' searches were adequate and in granting summary judgment as to that issue.