Opinion ID: 2832467
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: “Inadequate Search” FOIA Claims

Text: “The basic purpose of FOIA is to ensure an informed citizenry, vital to the functioning of a democratic society, needed to check against corruption and to hold the governors accountable to the governed.” NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 242 (1978). Toward that end, FOIA provides that agencies “shall make … records promptly available to any person” who submits a request that “(i) reasonably describes such records and (ii) is made in accordance with [the agency’s] published rules.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A). The Act is “broadly conceived,” and its “basic policy” is in favor of disclosure. Robbins Tire, 437 U.S. at 220. Agencies are, however, permitted to withhold records under nine statutory exemptions and three special exclusions for lawenforcement records. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)–(c). The withholding of records pursuant to a statutory exemption is a frequent source of litigation. But Rubman brings a different kind of FOIA suit: He challenges the adequacy of CIS’s records search. To prevail on summary judgment in this type of FOIA claim, the agency must show that there is no genuine issue of material fact about the adequacy of its records search. See Becker v. IRS, 34 F.3d 398, 405 (7th Cir. 1994); Steinberg v. DOJ, 23 F.3d 548, 551 (D.C. Cir. 1994). To demonstrate that its search was adequate, “the agency must show that it made a good faith effort to conduct a search for the requested records, using methods which can be reasonably expected to produce the information requested.” Oglesby v. U.S. Dep’t of Army, 920 F.2d 57, 68 (D.C. Cir. 1990). In other words, the search must have been a goodfaith effort and reasonable in light of the request. Good faith No. 14-3733 9 is presumed, see SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197, 1200 (D.C. Cir. 1991), and it can be bolstered by evidence of the agency’s efforts to satisfy the request. Reasonableness is a flexible and context-dependent standard. See Davis v. DOJ, 460 F.3d 92, 103 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (“[T]he adequacy of an agency’s search is measured by a standard of reasonableness, and is dependent upon the circumstances of the case.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Evidence that a search was reasonable and conducted in good faith generally comes in the form of “reasonably detailed nonconclusory affidavits submitted in good faith.” Matter of Wade, 969 F.2d 241, 249 n.11 (7th Cir. 1992). The affidavit requirement is important because [a] reasonably detailed affidavit, setting forth the search terms and the type of search per- formed, and averring that all files likely to con- tain responsive materials (if such records exist) were searched, is necessary to afford a FOIA requester an opportunity to challenge the ade- quacy of the search and to allow the district court to determine if the search was adequate in order to grant summary judgment. Oglesby, 920 F.2d at 68. In response to an agency affidavit, the FOIA requester can present “‘countervailing evidence’ as to the adequacy of the agency’s search.” Iturralde v. Comptroller of Currency, 315 F.3d 311, 314 (D.C. Cir. 2003). Once both parties have made their case, “if a review of the record raises substantial doubt [about the adequacy of the search], particularly in view of well defined requests and positive indications of 10 No. 14-3733 overlooked materials, summary judgment [in favor of the agency] is inappropriate.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). If the court finds the agency’s search inadequate, “the requester must show ‘some reason to think that the document would have turned up if the agency had looked for it,’” though since neither the requester nor the court know the content of the agency’s records, this is a low bar. Patterson v. IRS, 56 F.3d 832, 841 (7th Cir. 1995) (quoting Weisberg v. DOJ, 705 F.2d 1344, 1351 (D.C. Cir. 1983)). Importantly, the question at summary judgment is not whether the agency might have additional, unidentified responsive documents in its possession. See Wade, 969 F.2d at 249 n.11. Rather the court need only determine whether the search itself was performed reasonably and in good faith. Rubman believes CIS’s records search was inadequate because the agency never looked for the type of records he requested: He wanted a search of CIS’s preexisting “documents reflecting statistics,” while CIS interpreted his request as one for newly generated summary statistics. The district court held that CIS’s interpretation of his FOIA request, and the resulting search, were reasonable. We turn now to the degree of deference we should give that conclusion.