United States District Court, District of Columbia
MEMORANDUM OPINION, DENYING DEFENDANTS' RENEWED
MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE DOCUMENT NOS.: 409,
RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
se Plaintiff Jeremy Pinson has filed multiple Freedom of
Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552,
requests with various components of the U.S. Department of
Justice (“DOJ”). At issue here are two requests
submitted to the Executive Office of the United States
Attorneys (“EOUSA”). Pinson has challenged
EOUSA's prior responses to these requests, but she has
not challenged the latest response. This Court has already
granted in part and denied in part three motions for summary
judgment concerning her requests. See generally Pinson v.
U.S. Dep't of Justice, 145 F.Supp.3d 1 (D.D.C.
2015); Pinson v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 189
F.Supp.3d 137 (D.D.C. 2016); Pinson v. U.S. Dep't of
Justice, No. 12-cv-1872, 2017 WL 6887041 (D.D.C. Aug.
before the Court are DOJ's renewed motions for summary
judgment as to two of Pinson's remaining FOIA requests.
Defs.' Renewed Mot. Summ. J. (“Defs.' MSJ
(409)”), ECF No. 409; Defs.' Renewed Mot. Summ. J.
(“Defs.' MSJ (412)”), ECF No. 412. For the
reasons set forth below, the Court denies both motions for
Court has explained the factual background of this case in
detail in its prior Memorandum Opinions. See Pinson,
145 F.Supp.3d at 5-7; Pinson, 189 F.Supp.3d at
141-45; Pinson, 2017 WL 6887041, at *1-7. The Court
therefore confines its discussion to the facts most relevant
to the two requests at issue in the present motion.
Request No. 13-1085
submitted a FOIA request seeking, inter alia,
“copies of all discovery material” in the case of
United States v. Garcia, No. 11-cr-68-EJL, in the
District of Idaho. Luczynski Decl. (Oct. 20, 2016), Ex. I,
ECF No. 332-3. Pinson limited her request to “no more
than 150 pages . . . and no more than 2 hours search
time.” Id. After EOUSA informed Pinson that it
could not release the information because such third-party
information was protected, Pinson limited the scope of her
request to “seek only public records.” Luczynski
Decl. (Feb. 23, 2015), Ex. UUU, ECF No. 170-5; see
also Luczynski Decl. (Feb. 23, 2015) ¶¶ 82-83,
ECF No. 170-4.
this Court denied DOJ's third motion for summary
judgment,  EOUSA submitted with its renewed motion a
declaration from the FOIA contact who conducted the search
for Pinson's requested materials. See Narkin
Decl. (Oct. 24, 2017), ECF No. 409-3. Legal Administrative
Specialist Narkin conducted the search using Courtlink,
LexisNexis's docket research tool, and retrieved the
docket for United States v. Apodaca, in which two of
the eleven co-defendants had the surname Garcia. See
Id. ¶ 9. After searching for two hours and limiting
results to only public records, Narkin located 949 pages
related to the Apodaca case. Id. ¶ 10.
DOJ claims that all 949 pages relating to Pinson's
request for materials concerning the 11-cr-68 case were
released. Defs.' Statement of Material Facts
(“Defs.' SMF (409)”) ¶ 6, ECF No. 409-2.
However, the materials DOJ submitted with its renewed motion
indicate that 949 pages relating to a case with the docket
number 12-cr-236 were released. Luczynski Decl. (Dec. 13,
2017) at 2 & Ex. A, ECF No. 409-4. DOJ again moves for
summary judgment, this time on the basis that Pinson has
received the materials she requested. See Mem. P.
& A. Supp. Defs.' MSJ (“Defs.' Mem.
(409)”) at 3, ECF No. 409-1. Pinson did not submit an
opposition to the motion.
Request No. 12-1757
letter dated February 26, 2012, Ms. Pinson requested the
“production of all documents, email, or records”
for, inter alia, cases 10-cv-949 and 11-cv-1906.
Luczynski Decl. (Dec. 11, 2015), Ex. Y, ECF No. 254-4. Pinson
did not explicitly limit the number of pages to be produced
or the search time to be occupied by this request. See
Id. She did later clarify that this request also sought
public records, but was not limited to them. Luczynski Decl.
(Dec. 11, 2015), Ex. T, ECF No. 254-4.
this Court denied DOJ's third motion for summary
judgment,  EOUSA submitted with its renewed motion an
updated declaration from the FOIA contact who conducted the
search for the materials Pinson requested. Matuszewski Decl.
(Dec. 20, 2017) ¶ 15, ECF No. 412-3. Matuszewski's
updated declaration repeats information from her original
declaration regarding all the records systems that were
searched, why those systems were likely to contain all
responsive records, and the amount of material produced.
Compare Matuszewski Decl. (Dec. 20, 2017)
with Matuszewski Decl. (Oct. 12, 2016), ECF No.
332-3. Additionally, Matuszewski declares that she searched
the computerized docketing case management system Caseview
using the terms “Jeremy Pinson” and civil case
file numbers 11-cv-1906, 11-cv-1346, and 10-cv-949 to produce
197 pages of responsive material. See Matuszewski
Decl. (Dec. 20, 2017) ¶¶ 16, 18- 20. She maintains
that “all documents” found were forwarded to
EOUSA. See Id. ¶¶ 18-19. DOJ again moves
for summary judgment, contending that Matuszewski's
updated declaration sufficiently demonstrates that
EOUSA's search was reasonably calculated to locate all
responsive documents, and that all such responsive documents
were released. See Mem. P. & A. Supp. Defs.'
MSJ (“Defs.' Mem. (412)”) at 5, ECF No.
412-2. Pinson has not opposed this motion either.
prevail in a Freedom of Information Act 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 Act's
inspection requirements.'” Weisberg v. U.S.
Dep't of Justice, 627 F.2d 365, 368 (D.C. Cir. 1980)
(quoting Nat'l Cable Television Ass'n v.
FCC, 479 F.2d 183, 186 (D.C. Cir. 1973)). At the summary
judgment stage, the agency does this by showing “that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact.”