Opinion ID: 709483
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Adequacy of Customs' Search

Text: 12 To win summary judgment on the adequacy of a search, the agency must demonstrate beyond material doubt that its search was  'reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents.'  Truitt, 897 F.2d at 542 (quoting Weisberg v. United States Dep't of Justice, 705 F.2d 1344, 1351 (D.C.Cir.1983) (Weisberg II )). The agency must make 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. United States Dep't of Army, 920 F.2d 57, 68 (D.C.Cir.1990) (citing Weisberg III, 745 F.2d at 1485; Weisberg II, 705 F.2d at 1351), and it cannot limit its search to only one record system if there are others that are likely to turn up the information requested. Id. To show reasonableness at the summary judgment phase, an agency must set forth sufficient information in its affidavits for a court to determine if the search was adequate. Id. The affidavits must be 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. Id. Conclusory statements that the agency has reviewed relevant files are insufficient to support summary judgment. Weisberg v. United States Dep't of Justice, 627 F.2d 365, 370 (D.C.Cir.1980) (Weisberg I ) (affidavit asserting that agency official ha[s] conducted a review of [agency] files which would contain [responsive] information, without describing approach to search or identifying files searched, is insufficiently detailed to permit summary judgment). 13 Turning to the affidavits proffered by the agency in this case, it is helpful to review Customs' description of its recordkeeping system and the breadth of its search. The agency maintains more than 113 systems of records that are accessible by a name or personal identifier. Supplemental Decl. of Kathryn C. Peterson at 2. It does not have a central index of all records, but instead maintains two electronic records systems: a system of investigatory files (the Treasury Enforcement Communications System, or TECS), which contains data on violators and possible violators of laws enforced by Customs, and the Automated Commercial System, a database of information regarding merchandise imported into the United States, which is not relevant to this case. It also maintains the Executive Secretary Correspondence System, which indexes correspondence for the Customs Commissioner, as well as an old file of the Commissioner's correspondence called the Data Point System. Id. at 3. Additionally, at its headquarters, Customs keeps reading files, which hold copies of letters, memoranda, and correspondence. These records are filed chronologically, but not indexed by category, subject, or other topical identifier. Id. at 2. Regional Customs offices maintain their own files, some of which are discarded after three years. 14 Of these systems, Customs searched its TECS files, but declined to confirm or deny whether this search disclosed any responsive records. It also searched the Executive Secretary Correspondence and Data Point Systems, but these files did not yield responsive information. Id. at 3. Additionally, the agency examined indexes in its Houston and Miami regional offices. In Houston, Customs examined reader files, which apparently contain agency correspondence. Decl. of Kathryn C. Peterson at 7. These files, which are discarded by the Houston office after three years, did not hold any responsive information for the years of interest to appellants--1969 to 1992. The agency also checked an old 'card file' index system in use by the Houston office prior to TECS, but this did not reveal responsive records. Id. In the Miami office, Customs conducted a search for records reflecting any reference to H. Ross Perot, an island, a Caribbean Island or Customs usage of such either singularly or in any combination, but failed to locate responsive information. Id. at 7-8. Customs declined to search its reading files, claiming that such a search would be too laborious. 15 In assessing the reasonableness of this search, there are two issues that concern us. First, has Customs made an adequate search of files other than its reading files? Second, has Customs presented an adequate justification for not searching the reading files which it maintains in its headquarters? As to the first question, Customs asserted in its affidavits that it made a comprehensive search through all of its records systems where [records] responsive to the Plaintiffs request could conceivable [sic] be maintained and failed to locate any [responsive] records ... with the exception of the finding(s) set forth in the Defendant's In Camera Declaration. Second Supplemental Decl. of Kathryn C. Peterson at 4. If we agreed with the agency's position that appellants sought only those records indexed under Perot's name, we might find this search adequate. But as explained in Part II.A. above, we have construed the scope of appellants' request more broadly than did Customs, to include subject matter files. Customs did not describe its recordkeeping system in sufficient detail to permit us to identify what subject matter files, other than those in the Privacy Act System of Records, might hold responsive information regarding Perot's offers to help Customs with its drug interdiction efforts. In the absence of this information, the agency's assertions are too conclusory to allow de novo review of the adequacy of its search. 16 As to the second question, Customs claims a search of its reading files would be unreasonably burdensome. To be sure, there are some limits on what an agency must do to satisfy its FOIA obligations. For example, a request to inspect every chronological office file and correspondent file, internal and external, for every branch office, staff office [etc.] of the Census Bureau in hopes of discovering information regarding the Bureau's promotion practices was held to be unreasonable, as was a request to inspect every division or staff administrative office file in the Bureau which records, catalogues, or stores [promotion forms or memos]. American Fed'n of Gov't Employees, Local 2782 v. United States Dep't of Commerce, 907 F.2d 203, 208-09 (D.C.Cir.1990). 5 Here, appellants have asked Customs to search through 23 years of unindexed files for records pertaining to Perot, and we concur with the district court's determination that this search would impose an unreasonable burden on the agency. 6 We are puzzled, though, by the district court's determination that searching for the 1981 Chadwick memo would be too laborious, given that the files are indexed chronologically. 7 On remand, the district court should order Customs to search its reading files for this document if it cannot provide sufficient explanation as to why such a search would be unreasonably burdensome. 17 Because Customs has not submitted sufficiently detailed affidavits to allow us to review the adequacy of their search, we reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment on this point. On remand, the district court should address both issues that occasion our reversal here: whether the search of files other than the reading files was sufficient; and why a search of its reading files for the 1981 Chadwick memo would have been unreasonably burdensome. The court should order Customs to provide additional information on the question of whether it maintains topical or subject matter files, and if so, whether these files are likely to contain records responsive to appellants' request. It should also order Customs to submit further affidavits explaining why a search of the reading files for the Chadwick memo would be too laborious.