MEMORANDUM OPINION
CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
In the
spring of 2017, former FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter
Strzok was assigned to join Special Counsel Robert
Mueller's investigation of Russian interference in the
2016 presidential election. Just a few months later, Mueller
removed the veteran counterintelligence agent from the
investigation and the FBI reassigned him to its Human
Resources Division. Media outlets revealed why that December:
Strzok had exchanged text messages with an FBI colleague
suggesting a potential bias against then-candidate Donald
Trump.
Suspecting
something was amiss, Plaintiff Judicial Watch, Inc. submitted
a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request to
the FBI in August 2017-before news of the texts broke-
seeking records relating to Strzok's assignment to and
from the Mueller investigation. The FBI responded by
producing all or parts of 16 pages of emails and withholding
three other pages based on several overlapping FOIA
exemptions. Dissatisfied with the Bureau's response,
Judicial Watch sued. Both sides have now moved for summary
judgment, focusing entirely on the adequacy of the FBI's
records search. For the reasons that follow, the Court will
deny the government's motion for summary judgment and
grant Judicial Watch's cross motion.
I.
Background
Judicial Watch's FOIA request asked for the following
records:
Any and all records regarding, concerning, or related to the
assignment of FBI Supervisor Peter Strzok to the special
counsel's investigation led by former Director Robert
Mueller.
Any and all records regarding, concerning, or related to the
reassignment of FBI Supervisor Peter Strzok from the special
counsel's investigation to another position within the
FBI.
This request includes, but is not limited to, any and all
forms SF-50 and/or SF-52, as well as any and all related
records of communication between any official, employee, or
representative of the FBI and any other individual or entity.
Compl., ECF No. 1, ¶ 5.
In
response, the FBI searched Agent Strzok's personnel file
and records maintained by its Human Resources Division and
Central Records System. First Declaration of David M. Hardy
(“First Hardy Decl.”), ECF No. 7-1, ¶¶
18-19, 21. These searches produced zero responsive records.
Id. The agency then searched Strzok's email
account using the terms “assignment, ”
“reassignment, ” and “appointment” in
conjunction with the phrase “special counsel.”
Id. ¶ 22. This search produced 19 pages of
responsive emails and attachments-mostly congratulatory notes
from colleagues and discussions about the logistics of the
transfer. Id. ¶ 25. The FBI released all or
parts of 16 pages and fully withheld three. Id.
Judicial
Watch filed suit in December 2017 and both parties have now
moved for summary judgment. Judicial Watch challenges only
the adequacy of the FBI's search. Judicial Watch Mot.
Summ. J. (“JW MSJ”), ECF No. 9, at 2.
II.
Legal Standard
FOIA
cases are typically resolved on summary judgment. See
Brayton v. Office of U.S. Trade Rep., 641 F.3d 521, 527
(D.C. Cir. 2011). Summary judgment is appropriate if
“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).
Under
FOIA, government agencies must adequately search for
responsive records. Rodriguez v. U.S. Dep't of
Def., 236 F.Supp.3d 26, 34 (D.D.C. 2017). When a FOIA
requester challenges the adequacy of an agency's search,
the agency must show “beyond material doubt that its
search was reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant
documents.” Ancient Coin Collectors Guild v. U.S.
Dep't of State, 641 F.3d 504, 514 (D.C. Cir. 2011))
(citation, quotation marks omitted). Courts analyze the
“appropriateness of the methods” used by the
agency rather than the fruits of the search. Francis v.
U.S. Dep't of Justice, 267 F.Supp.3d 9, 12 (D.D.C.
2017). “Although a requester must reasonably describe
the records sought, an agency also has a duty to construe a
FOIA request liberally.” Nation Magazine, Wash.
Bureau v. U.S. Customs Serv., 71 F.3d 885, 890 (D.C.
Cir. 1995) (alteration, citation, and quotation marks
omitted). More simply, while agencies “need not turn
over every stone, [] they must conduct a ...