UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BRADY CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 17-2130 (RDM) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, and BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence (“Brady Center”) brings this Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, action against the U.S. Department of Justice and one of its components, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (“ATF”), seeking the release of records it claims Defendants have improperly withheld. Dkt. 1 (Compl.). The Brady Center submitted two FOIA requests to the ATF—one seeking records relating to a paper written by a senior ATF official about ways to reduce gun regulations (“White Paper Request”), and the other seeking records relating to ATF inspections of federally-licensed gun dealers (“Warning Letters Request”). Dkt. 1-2; Dkt. 1-3. As required by order of this Court, the ATF released records responsive to the White Paper Request, but withheld certain records in whole or in part, and started releasing records responsive to the Warning Letters Request, but with substantial redactions. Although the ATF’s response to the Warning Letters Request is not yet complete, the Court granted the Brady Center’s request for a briefing schedule on (1) the adequacy of the ATF’s response to the White Paper Request, and (2) the lawfulness of the ATF’s redaction of certain information from records responsive to the Warning Letters Request. Minute Order (June 25, 2018). Consistent with that scheduling order, the parties filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment addressing those issues. Dkt. 16; Dkt. 17. For the reasons explained below, the Court will grant in part and deny in part the parties’ respective cross-motions. With respect to the White Paper Request, the Court holds that the ATF did not conduct an adequate search for responsive records; that the ATF lawfully concluded that unrelated attachments to responsive emails were outside the scope of the FOIA request; and that the parties’ dispute regarding assertion of the deliberative process privilege has been resolved by the Brady Center’s acquiescence in certain withholdings and the ATF’s decision to release other previously withheld records. With respect to the Warning Letters Request, the Court holds that the ATF lawfully redacted certain information but that, without a Vaughn index or additional information regarding the specifics of each redaction, the Court cannot determine whether each redaction was permissible. I. BACKGROUND The Brady Center submitted the first of the two FOIA requests at issue here on March 29, 2017. Dkt. 1-2. That request—the White Paper Request—sought: (1) All communications between ATF employees related to the January 20, 2017 White Paper titled “Federal Firearm Regulations—Options to Reduce or Modify Firearms Regulations[;]” (2) All communications between ATF employees and members of the Presidential Transition Team related to the January 20, 2017 White Paper . . . [;] (3) All communications between ATF employees and non-government employees, including but not limited to representatives from gun manufacturers or the National Rifle Association, related ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals