UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 20-3204 (RDM) DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) case is before the Court on cross-motions for partial summary judgment. Dkt. 40; Dkt. 41. At issue is whether the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) must search for responsive records maintained by the DHS Office of the Inspector General (“OIG”). On May 22, 2020, Plaintiff American Civil Liberties Union (“ACLU”) submitted its FOIA request to DHS’s Privacy Office seeking records “in the custody or control of ICE [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement] and DHS” relating to “the Trump Administration’s response to the risk of COVID-19 in immigration detention facilities.” Dkt. 40-5 at 2, 5 (Pl.’s Ex. 1). The ACLU maintains that it properly submitted its request to the Privacy Office, which is authorized to accept FOIA requests on behalf of other DHS components, including OIG; that it was evident at the time the request was submitted that OIG had responsive records; that this fact became crystal clear before DHS began its search; and that the records that DHS has located to date confirm that OIG has responsive records. See generally Dkt. 40-2. DHS disagrees. It argues that, if the ACLU wanted DHS to search files maintained by OIG, it should have submitted a FOIA request to OIG; that the Privacy Office was required only to forward the ACLU’s request to the DHS “component(s) that [the Privacy Office] determine[d] to be most likely to maintain the records that [we]re sought,” 6 C.F.R. § 5.3(a)(2); that the Privacy Office satisfied this mandate when it forwarded the ACLU’s request to ICE; and that the Privacy Office was not on reasonable notice that OIG is likely to have responsive records in its files. See generally Dkt. 41-1. For the reasons explained below, the Court concludes that the ACLU has the better of the arguments. The Court will, accordingly, grant the ACLU’s motion for partial summary judgment, Dkt. 40, will deny DHS’s cross-motion for partial summary judgment, Dkt. 41, and will direct that DHS include OIG in its search for responsive records. I. BACKGROUND On May 22, 2020, the ACLU submitted identical FOIA requests to ICE and DHS’s Privacy Office, seeking “records pertaining to the Trump Administration’s response to the risk of COVID-19 in immigration detention facilities.” Dkt. 40-5 at 2 (Pl.’s Ex. 1); see also Dkt. 40-1 at 1 (Plaintiff’s Statement of Undisputed Material Fact (“Pl.’s SUMF”) ¶ 1).1 Among other things, 1 Under Local Civil Rule 7(h)(1), “[a]n opposition to . . . a motion [for summary judgment] shall be accompanied by a separate concise statement of genuine issues setting forth all material facts as to which it is contended there exists a genuine issue necessary to be litigated, which shall include references to the parts of the record relied on to support the statement.” If the opposing party fails to comply with this requirement, “the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals