UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY ) AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 18-cv-007 (TSC) ) ) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ) JUSTICE, ) ) Defendant. ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) brought this action under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, et seq., challenging Defendant Department of Justice’s (DOJ) response to a FOIA request. Before the court are Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 25 (Def. MSJ)) and CREW’s Cross- Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 27 (Pl. MSJ)). Upon consideration of the motions, the responses and replies thereto, and for the following reasons, the court will GRANT DOJ’s motion and DENY CREW’s motion. I. BACKGROUND In December 2017, CREW sent FOIA requests to DOJ’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) and Office of Information Policy (OIP) seeking “[a]ll communications concerning the decision to invite reporters to DOJ on December 12, 2017, for the purpose of sharing with them private text messages sent during the 2016 presidential campaign by two former FBI investigators on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team,” and “documents reflecting who made 1 the decision to release this material to reporters on the evening of December 12, 2017.” (ECF No. 25-4 (Brinkmann Decl.) ¶ 3; ECF No. 25-3 (Waller Decl.) ¶ 2.) The request to OIP specified that it included: (1) communications with reporters regarding this meeting; (2) communications within DOJ about whether, when, and how to share the text messages with reporters including, inter alia, the Office of the Inspector General, the Attorney General, the Office of Legislative Affairs, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, the Office of Public Affairs, and any individual within the senior leadership offices of DOJ; and (3) communications with any member of Congress and/or their staff regarding this matter. (Brinkmann Decl. ¶ 3.) CREW filed this case on January 3, 2018 and subsequently amended its complaint. (ECF No. 4 (Am. Compl.).) After OIP conducted its initial search, it became “aware of a problem with the data on which some of its searches were run . . . stemming from the migration of DOJ email onto new servers.” (Def. MSJ at 10; see also ECF No. 15-1, (Aug. 10, 2018 Brinkmann Decl.).) OIP then “worked closely” with DOJ’s Justice Management Division’s Office of the Chief Information Officer to “re-run the searches” for responsive records. (Brinkmann Decl. ¶ 27.) The re-run produced additional responsive records, which OIP provided to CREW. (Brinkmann Decl. ¶ 31.) The parties disagree on two issues: whether OIP provided enough information about the data migration issue for the court to assess the adequacy of its search, and whether DOJ improperly decided that each email or text, rather than each thread, constitutes a “record.” II. LEGAL STANDARDS A. Summary Judgment Summary judgment is appropriate if “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals