Case Detail

FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly has ruled that the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys was not obligated to ask the FBI for information about an FBI file number in order to locate the criminal file to which the case number referred. Julian White requested court filings from a federal criminal case referenced to an FBI file number, prosecuted by an identified Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of New York that led to White's conviction for interstate transportation of stolen vehicles. After searching records from the Eastern District of New York in its LIONS database, EOUSA told White it found no responsive records. Kollar-Kotelly explained that the agency, "believing the 'defendant' in the case referenced in Plaintiff's request to be Mr. White, searched for Mr. White's name in the LIONS database. Plaintiff did not identify who the 'defendant' might be. The only names provided in the request were Mr. White's and the prosecutor's. [The agency] also performed a search using the FBI file number provided by Plaintiff's request. This search likewise failed to return any responsive records." White attacked the adequacy of the search conducted by EOUSA. But Kollar-Kotelly noted that "the 'Case Search' inquiry in LIONS allows users to search by agency file numbers, including FBI file numbers. If the FBI was the investigating agency, the FBI file number should be in the database, and thus any case relating to a particular FBI file number should be retrieved by a search for the FBI file number. In relevant part, [the agency's] declaration indicates [it] searched for the FBI file number as provided in the FOIA request, but the search returned no responsive records." Kollar-Kotelly pointed out that "Plaintiff fails to explain what additional information could be provided, or why it would be relevant to determining the adequacy of Defendant's search. . .Although the affidavit could in theory be more detailed, that fact alone does not warrant denying summary judgment in favor of Defendant. Having failed to provide any evidence to overcome the presumption of good faith afforded to Defendant's affidavit, Plaintiff's challenge to [the agency's declaration] fails." White argued EOUSA was obligated to contact the FBI to get more information about its file number. He claimed that Natural Resources Defense Council v. Dept of Defense, 388 F. Supp. 2d 1086 (C.D. Cal. 2005), supported his case. But Kollar-Kotelly found that the Natural Resources decision, requiring Defense to either refer the request to the Air Force, which was the lead agency on the subject matter of the request, or to tell NRDC to request the records from the Air Force because it was relevant information the agency knew but the requester did not, was inapplicable here. She noted that "by contrast here, the UASO did not have any information unknown to Plaintiff that would have re-directed Plaintiff's search to the proper agency. Rather both the Plaintiff and the agency lacked additional information other than the FBI file number, the name of the requestor and the prosecutor, and Plaintiff seeks to place the burden of investigation on the agency. Natural Resources provides no support for the notion that the responding agency is required to request additional information from another agency in order to process a FOIA request that was directed towards the proper agency." As to whether or not responsive records existed, Kollar-Kotelly indicated that "even where it 'strains credulity' to think that the requested documents do not exist, that alone is not a sufficient basis to 'undermine the determination that the agency conducted an adequate search for the requested records. Given the adequacy of the search. . . Plaintiff's speculation that responsive records must exist does not amount to 'countervailing evidence' sufficient to raise a 'substantial doubt' as to the adequacy of the USAO's search."
Issues: Adequacy - Search

Date Filed	Doc #	Docket Text
2011-01-31	1	COMPLAINT against UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS ( Filing fee $ 350, receipt number 4616036137) filed by JULIAN C. WHITE. (Attachment: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(tnr, ) (Entered: 02/02/2011)
2011-01-31		SUMMONS (3) Issued as to UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (rdj) (Entered: 02/08/2011)
2011-02-02	2	ORDER Establishing Procedures for Electronic Filing for Cases Assigned to Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, signed on February 2, 2011. (SM) (Entered: 02/02/2011)
2011-03-10	3	RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the United States Attorney. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney on 2/15/2011. Answer due for ALL FEDERAL DEFENDANTS by 3/17/2011. (Stotter, Daniel) Modified dates on 3/11/2011 (znmw, ). (Entered: 03/10/2011)
2011-03-10	4	RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on United States Attorney General. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney General 02/15/11. (Stotter, Daniel) (Entered: 03/10/2011)
2011-03-10	5	RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS served on 2/18/2011 (Stotter, Daniel) Modified date of service on 3/11/2011 (znmw, ). (Entered: 03/10/2011)
2011-03-11		Set/Reset Deadlines: Answer due by 3/17/2011, (znmw, ) (Entered: 03/11/2011)
2011-03-17	6	NOTICE of Appearance by Sean Joseph Vanek on behalf of UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS (Vanek, Sean) (Entered: 03/17/2011)
2011-03-17	7	ANSWER to 1 Complaint by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS.(Vanek, Sean) (Entered: 03/17/2011)
2011-04-26	8	ORDER. The parties shall confer and propose a schedule for proceeding in this matter. The schedule should indicate whether discovery is necessary and include dates for the filing of dispositive motions. The parties shall file the schedule by no later than May 6, 2011. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on April 26, 2011. (lcckk1) (Entered: 04/26/2011)
2011-05-05	9	STATUS REPORT Joint Status Report by JULIAN C. WHITE. (Stotter, Daniel) (Entered: 05/05/2011)
2011-05-05	10	STATUS REPORT Corrected Joint Status Report by JULIAN C. WHITE. (Stotter, Daniel) (Entered: 05/05/2011)
2011-05-08	11	SCHEDULING AND PROCEDURES ORDER. The parties shall adhere to the following schedule: Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment shall be due on or before June 10, 2011; Plaintiff's Opposition and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment shall be due on or before July 8, 2011; Defendant's Reply and Opposition to Cross-Motion shall be due on or before July 22, 2011; and Plaintiff's Reply shall be due on or before August 12, 2011. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on May 8, 2011. (lcckk1) (Entered: 05/08/2011)
2011-05-17		Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiff's Cross Motions due by 7/8/2011. Response to Cross Motions due by 7/22/2011. Reply to Cross Motions due by 8/12/2011. Defendant Summary Judgment motions due by 6/10/2011. Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 7/8/2011. Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 7/22/2011. (dot ) (Entered: 05/17/2011)
2011-06-10	12	MOTION for Summary Judgment by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Statement of Facts, # 3 Text of Proposed Order, # 4 Declaration Boseker, # 5 Declaration Lowenthal)(Vanek, Sean) (Entered: 06/10/2011)
2011-07-06	13	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Plainitff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Plainitff's Response To Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and Modification of Summary Judgment Briefing Schedule by JULIAN C. WHITE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Stotter, Daniel) (Entered: 07/06/2011)
2011-07-13		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING 13 Consent Motion for Extension of Time and Modification of Summary Judgment Briefing Schedule. Plaintiff shall file his motion for summary judgment and response to Defendant's motion for summary judgment by no later than July 15, 2011. Defendant shall file its consolidated reply and opposition brief by no later than July 29, 2011. Plaintiff shall file his reply by no later than August 15, 2011. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on July 13, 2011. (lcckk1) (Entered: 07/13/2011)
2011-07-15	14	Memorandum in opposition to re 12 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by JULIAN C. WHITE. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts, # 2 Declaration Declaration of Julian C. White and Exhibit A, # 3 Declaration Declaration of Daniel J. Stotter)(Stotter, Daniel) (Entered: 07/15/2011)
2011-07-15	15	MOTION for Summary Judgment by JULIAN C. WHITE (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Statement of Facts, # 3 Declaration Declaration of Julian White and Exhibit A, # 4 Declaration Declaration of Daniel Stotter, # 5 Text of Proposed Order)(Stotter, Daniel) (Entered: 07/15/2011)
2011-07-27	16	Memorandum in opposition to re 15 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts, # 2 Exhibit A-C)(Vanek, Sean) (Entered: 07/27/2011)
2011-07-27	17	REPLY to opposition to motion re 12 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts, # 2 Exhibit A-C)(Vanek, Sean) (Entered: 07/27/2011)
2011-08-12	18	REPLY to opposition to motion re 15 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by JULIAN C. WHITE. (Stotter, Daniel) (Entered: 08/12/2011)
2012-01-05	19	ORDER. For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's 12 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED; it is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's 15 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. This case is dismissed in its entirety. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 1/5/12. (lcckk2) (Entered: 01/05/2012)
2012-01-05	20	MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 1/5/12. (lcckk2) (Entered: 01/05/2012)
Hide Docket Events