MEMORANDUM OPINION
COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This
lawsuit arises from a Freedom of Information Act
(“FOIA”) request that pro se Plaintiff Peter
Liounis made to Defendant United States Department of
Justice. Plaintiff requested documents related to the grand
jury that issued an indictment against him, initiating
criminal proceedings which eventually resulted in his
conviction and current incarceration. The Executive Office
for United States Attorneys (“EOUSA”), the
department in possession of the requested records, has denied
Plaintiff's FOIA request in full. The EOUSA claims that
the requested documents are exempt under FOIA Exemption 3 in
conjunction with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), on
the grounds that grand jury material is exempt from mandatory
release, and FOIA Exemption 5, on the grounds that the
documents are attorney work product. Plaintiff filed this
suit arguing that the EOUSA wrongfully denied his FOIA
request.
Upon
consideration of the pleadings, [1] the relevant legal
authorities, and the record as it currently stands, the Court
DENIES Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and GRANTS
Defendant's motion for summary judgment. The Court
concludes that Defendant conducted a reasonable search under
FOIA and that all responsive documents have either already
been released to Plaintiff or are exempt under FOIA
Exemptions 3 and 5.
I.
BACKGROUND
In his
FOIA request, Plaintiff seeks to acquire documents related to
the grand jury in the Eastern District of New York which
issued an indictment resulting in a criminal trial at which
Plaintiff was found guilty and later sentenced to 292-months
imprisonment. Plaintiff's FOIA request is the latest in a
long line of attempts to gain access to these grand jury
documents. Prior to this FOIA request, during his criminal
proceeding, Plaintiff submitted numerous in limine, pro se
motions to dismiss the indictment due to alleged
improprieties in the grand jury proceeding. Declaration of
Jonathan P. Lax, 56-5, ¶ 7. Following his conviction,
Plaintiff continued his attempts to gain access to his grand
jury materials, arguing in more pro se motions that his
indictment had been invalid due to impropriety in the grand
jury. Id. ¶ 8. In addition to initiating this
FOIA request, Plaintiff has continued his attempts to gain
access to his grand jury materials through his criminal
proceeding by filing a petition seeking a writ of habeas
corpus and moving for discovery with respect to the
indictment and grant jury proceedings. Id. at ¶
10. In both his criminal proceeding and in his FOIA request,
Plaintiff seeks these documents based on his belief that the
records will show that government misconduct infected the
grand jury proceeding, invalidating his indictment and his
subsequent criminal conviction. First Am. Compl., ECF No.
30-1, 17.
The
EOUSA first received Plaintiff's FOIA request seeking his
grand jury materials on January 19, 0217. Declaration of
Vinay J. Jolly, ECF No. 13-1, Ex. A, 7-8. By letter dated
February 23, 2017, the EOUSA denied Plaintiff's request
for impermissibly seeking grand jury materials. Id.
at Ex. B, 15. On that same day, the EOUSA received a second,
duplicate FOIA request from Plaintiff seeking the same grand
jury materials. Id. at Ex. C, 17-18. And again, by
letter dated March 7, 2017, the EOUSA denied Plaintiff's
second, duplicate FOIA request for impermissibly seeking
grand jury materials. Id. at Ex. D, 21-22. On March
21, 2017, Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal for both
denials. Id. at Ex. E, 23-34; Id. at Ex. F,
35-46. On appeal, the denial of Plaintiff's FOIA requests
was affirmed as Plaintiff's requests impermissibly sought
records which “may reveal some secret aspect of the
grand jury's investigation.” Id. at Ex. J,
52; Id. at Ex. I, 49.
Defendant
now comes to this Court asking that the Court order the EOUSA
to release the requested grand jury materials under FOIA.
Presently before the Court are Defendant's [56] Motion
for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff's [69] Cross-Motion
for Summary Judgment. But, these are not the first summary
judgment cross-motions that the Court has considered in this
case. In its June 11, 2018 Order, the Court denied without
prejudice both parties' prior cross-motions for summary
judgment. The Court concluded that Defendant had
categorically denied Plaintiff's FOIA requests in their
entirety, providing only a brief, conclusory explanation for
doing so. Without a more detailed proffer, the Court could
not be assured that all portions of all the requested
documents were exempt from FOIA. Order, ECF No. 45, 1-4. As
ordered by the Court, in its Renewed Motion for Summary
Judgment, Defendant has attached a Vaughn index
listing the documents being withheld and briefly explaining
why each document is exempt from disclosure. Considering this
Vaughn index, Defendant's attached declarations,
and the parties' arguments, the Court can now affirm
Defendant's determination that the requested documents
are exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
Congress
enacted FOIA to “pierce the veil of administrative
secrecy and to open agency action to the light of public
scrutiny.” Dep't of the Air Force v. Rose,
425 U.S. 352, 361 (1976) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Congress remained sensitive to the need to achieve balance
between these objectives and the potential that
“legitimate governmental and private interests could be
harmed by release of certain types of information.”
FBI v. Abramson, 456 U.S. 615, 621 (1982). To that
end, FOIA “requires federal agencies to make Government
records available to the public, subject to nine
exemptions.” Milner v. Dep't of Navy, 562
U.S. 562, 562 (2011). Ultimately, “disclosure, not
secrecy, is the dominant objective of the Act.”
Rose, 425 U.S. at 361. For this reason, the
“exemptions are explicitly made exclusive, and must be
narrowly construed.” Milner, 562 U.S. at 565
(internal quotation marks omitted).
When
presented with a motion for summary judgment in this context,
the district court must conduct a “de novo”
review of the record, which requires the court to
“ascertain whether the agency has sustained its burden
of demonstrating the documents requested are ... exempt from
disclosure under the FOIA.” Multi Ag Media LLC v.
U.S. Dep't of Agriculture, 515 F.3d 1224, 1227 (D.C.
Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). The burden is
on the agency to justify its response to the plaintiff's
request. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B). “An agency may
sustain its burden by means of affidavits, but only if they
contain reasonable specificity of detail rather than merely
conclusory statements, and if they are not called into
question by contradictory evidence in the record or by
evidence of agency bad faith.” Multi Ag Media,
515 F.3d at 1227 (internal quotation marks omitted).
“If an agency's affidavit describes the
justifications for withholding the information with specific
detail, demonstrates that the information withheld logically
falls within the claimed exemption, and is not contradicted
by contrary evidence in the record or by evidence of the
agency's bad faith, then summary judgment is warranted on
the basis of the affidavit alone.” Am. Civil
Liberties Union v. U.S. Dep't of Defense, 628 F.3d
612, 619 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted).
“Uncontradicted, plausible affidavits showing
reasonable specificity and a logical relation to the
exemption are likely to prevail.” Ancient Coin
Collectors Guild v. U.S. Dep't of State, 641 F.3d
504, 509 (D.C. Cir. 2011). Summary judgment is proper when
the pleadings, the discovery materials on file, and any
affidavits or declarations “show[ ] that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
56(a).
III.
DISCUSSION
An
agency must release all non-exempt documents responsive to a
plaintiff's FOIA request following a search that is
“reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant
documents.” Ancient Coin Collectors, 641 F.3d
at 514 (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the Court
concludes that the EOUSA conducted an adequate search for
records responsive to Plaintiff's FOIA request. The Court
further concludes that any responsive records were either
made available to Plaintiff or were properly withheld under
FOIA Exemptions 3 and 5.
First,
the Court will assess the adequacy of Defendant's search.
Plaintiff contends that Defendant's search was not
adequate because Defendant was unable to locate the requested
voting and attendance records of the grand jurors. Pl.'s
Mot., ECF No. 68, 6. Despite Plaintiff's argument, the
Court finds that Defendant's search was adequate.
“The
Court applies a reasonableness test to determine the adequacy
of search methodology ... consistent with the congressional
intent tilting in favor of disclosure.” Campbell v.
U.S. Dep't of Justice, 164 F.3d 20, 27 (D.C. Cir.
1998) (internal quotation marks omitted). An agency
“fulfills its obligations under FOIA if it can
demonstrate beyond material doubt that its search was
reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant
documents.” Ancient Coin Collectors Guild, 641
F.3d at 514 (internal quotation marks omitted). The agency
may submit affidavits or declarations to explain the method
and scope of its search. See Perry v. Block, 684
F.2d 121, 126 (D.C. Cir. 1982). And, such affidavits or
declarations are “accorded a presumption of good faith,
which cannot be rebutted by purely speculative claims about
the existence and discoverability of other documents.”
SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197, 1200
(D.C. Cir. 1991) (internal quotation marks omitted). However,
if the record “leaves substantial doubt as to the
sufficiency of the search, summary judgment for the agency is
not proper.” Truitt v. Dep't of State, 897
F.2d 540, 542 (D.C. Cir. 1990).
Here,
Defendant submitted a declaration from Jonathan P. Lax
concerning the adequacy of the search for records responsive
to Plaintiff's FOIA request. Mr. Lax is an Assistant
United States Attorney in the United States Attorney's
Office for the Eastern District of New York
(“USAO-EDNY”). Declaration of Jonathan P. Lax,
ECF. No. 56-6, ¶ 2. As Mr. Lax was involved in
Plaintiff's post-conviction proceedings, Mr. Lax is
familiar with Plaintiff's multiple failed attempts to
seek judicial relief on the grounds of alleged grand jury
impropriety. Id. at ¶ 3.
Following
this Court's June 11, 2018 Order, it was determined that
the USAO-EDNY, which had handled the criminal case against
Plaintiff, maintained all original records relevant to the
matter. Id. at ¶ 4. As the USAO-EDNY was in
possession of any and all responsive records, Mr. Lax
reviewed the USAO-EDNY's file from Plaintiff's
criminal proceeding. This file included the grand jury
records pertaining Plaintiff's prosecution. Id.
at ΒΆ 12. Specifically, Mr. Lax searched nine boxes of
physical files and voluminous electronic case files, all
...