King v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PETER KING, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-00995 (CJN) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION In this suit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, Plaintiff Peter King seeks an audio recording from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). See generally Compl., ECF No. 1. ICE moves for summary judgment on the grounds that it was unable to locate the recording King seeks. See generally Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J. (“Defs.’ Mot.”), ECF No. 15. Because the Court concludes that the government has conducted a reasonable search, it grants summary judgment to the government in full. I. Background King is a documentary filmmaker. Compl. ¶ 2. On October 14, 2019, he submitted to ICE a FOIA request seeking “a copy of the complete audio recording described in [a 2003 ICE] memo . . . . The audio was recorded by an ICE informant on August 5, 2003 and documents a murder related to an ICE investigation.” Id. ¶ 7. In November 2019, ICE responded that it could “neither confirm nor deny the existence of responsive records on the individual(s) identified in [the] request” and stated that, even if such records did exist, “they would be exempt from disclosure 1 pursuant to Exemptions 6 and/or 7(C) of the FOIA.” Id. ¶¶ 8–9. King appealed the denial on the grounds that ICE, other authorities, and the informant who allegedly created the recording had already acknowledged its existence. Id. ¶ 10. After ICE affirmed its initial determination, id. ¶ 12, King brought this lawsuit to compel ICE to produce the recording, see generally id. ICE then conducted a search and reported that it was unable to locate any responsive records. See Joint Status Report ¶ 2, ECF No. 10. The government now moves for summary judgment on the grounds that its search was reasonable and yielded no responsive records. See generally Defs.’ Mot. King argues that the search was inadequate because ICE only searched its physical—but not electronic—records. See generally Pl.’s Opp’n to Defs.’ Mot (“Pl.’s Opp’n”), ECF No. 18. II. Legal Standard “[T]he vast majority of FOIA cases can be resolved on summary judgment.” Brayton v. Office of U.S. Trade Representative, 641 F.3d 521, 527 (D.C. Cir. 2011). “An agency fulfills its obligations under FOIA if it can demonstrate beyond material doubt that its search was reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents.” Valencia-Lucena v. U.S. Coast Guard, 180 F.3d 321, 325 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (internal quotation omitted). “The agency must show that it made a good faith effort to conduct a search for the requested records, using methods which can be reasonably expected to produce the information requested.” Id. at 326 (internal quotation and alterations omitted). “The agency cannot limit its search to only one or more places if there are additional sources that are likely to turn up the information requested.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). “At …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals