UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________ ) WATKINS LAW & ) ADVOCACY, PLLC, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 17-1974 (ABJ) ) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT ) OF JUSTICE, ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________) MEMORANDUM OPINION On September 25, 2017, plaintiff Watkins Law & Advocacy, PLLC filed this suit under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, seeking six records responsive to requests made to the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”), the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (“ATF”) in October and November 2015. Compl. [Dkt. # 1]. Citing the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 (“Brady Act”), Public Law 103-159, 107 Stat. 1536, plaintiff sought records concerning “inter-agency agreements” which were tied “to allegedly financially incompetent veterans . . . reported [by the VA] to DOJ, FBI, and ATF.” Compl. ¶¶ 1, 30 (emphasis in original). After defendants processed plaintiff’s requests, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the four requests that remained in dispute. See Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J. [Dkt. # 20] (“Defs.’ First Mot.”); Pl.’s Cross-Mot. for Summ. J. [Dkt. # 21] (“Pl.’s First Cross-Mot.”). The Court granted in part and denied in part both plaintiff’s and defendants’ motions, entering judgment in favor of the VA, FBI, and ATF, and remanding one request to DOJ “to conduct an adequate search.” Watkins Law v. U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 412 F. Supp. 3d 98, 123 (D.D.C. 2019); see also September 30, 2019 Order [Dkt. # 33] (“Sept. 2019 Order”); September 30, 2019 Mem. Op. [Dkt. # 34] (“Sept. 2019 Mem. Op.”). On January 31, 2020, DOJ – the only defendant that remains – completed its supplemental search for responsive documents and made its release to plaintiff. See Def.’s Status Report (Jan. 31, 2020) [Dkt. # 37] at 1. In May 2020, the parties renewed their cross-motions for summary judgment with respect to the remanded request. Def.’s Renewed Mot. for Summ. J. [Dkt. # 40] (“Def.’s Renewed Mot.”); Pl.’s Renewed Cross-Mot. for Summ. J. and Opp. to Def.’s Renewed Mot. [Dkt. # 42] (“Pl.’s Renewed Cross-Mot.”). The matter is now fully briefed, 1 and the Court will once again grant and deny each motion in part. It finds that the search on remand was adequate; DOJ must produce the two redacted reports to Congress in full; and the agency properly withheld the disputed Office of Legal Policy (“OLP”) memorandum under Exemption 5. BACKGROUND The factual and legal background of this case was laid out in detail in the Court’s previous opinion. See Sept. 2019 Mem. Op. at 2–4 (discussing the history of the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, and the memoranda of understanding that 1 See also Def.’s Statement of Material Facts Not in Genuine Dispute [Dkt. # 40] (“Def.’s SOF”); Pl.’s Mem. in Opp to Def.’s Mot. and in Supp. …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals