| Date Filed | Doc # | Docket Text |
|
| 2015-03-25 | 1 | COMPLAINT against U.S. Department of Justice,filed by Lawrence Watson(Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet and Category)(Caruso, Stephanie) (Entered: 03/26/2015) |
| 2015-03-26 | 3 | General Order 09-1, dated January 6, 2009 regarding the E-Government Act and Personal Identifiers entered. (Caruso, Stephanie) (Entered: 03/26/2015) |
| 2015-03-26 | 4 | ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Judge Denise J. Casper assigned to case. If the trial Judge issues an Order of Reference of any matter in this case to a Magistrate Judge, the matter will be transmitted to Magistrate Judge M. Page Kelley. (Abaid, Kimberly) (Entered: 03/26/2015) |
| 2015-10-08 | 5 | Remark. Address of Lawrence Watson changed based on notice of change of address filed in C.A. No. 15-11283-DLC. In the future, plaintiff must file a notice of change of address in every active case to ensure receipt of notice of docket activity. See Local Rule 83.5.5(h). (PSSA, 3) (Entered: 10/08/2015) |
| 2015-10-08 | 6 | Judge Denise J. Casper: ORDER entered granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. The clerk shall issue a summons and the plaintiff shall serve the summons, complaint, and this order in accordance with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Because the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, he may elect to have the United States Marshals Service complete service with all costs of service to be advanced by the United States. The plaintiff shall have 120 days from the date of the issuance of summons to complete service. (PSSA, 3) (Entered: 10/08/2015) |
| 2015-10-08 | 7 | Summons Issued as to U.S. Department of Justice and mailed to plaintiff with Local Rule 4.1 and forms and instructions for service by the United States Marshals Service. (PSSA, 3) (Entered: 10/08/2015) |
| 2015-11-05 | 8 | SUMMONS Returned Executed as to US Attorney by Lawrence Watson. U.S. Department of Justice served on 10/29/2015, answer due 12/28/2015. (Maynard, Timothy) (Entered: 11/05/2015) |
| 2015-11-09 | 9 | NOTICE of Appearance by Anita Johnson on behalf of U.S. Department of Justice (Johnson, Anita) (Main Document 9 replaced on 11/10/2015) (Maynard, Timothy). (Entered: 11/09/2015) |
| 2015-11-13 | 10 | SUMMONS Returned Executed as to US Attorney General, Loretta Lynch by Lawrence Watson. (Maynard, Timothy) (Entered: 11/13/2015) |
| 2015-11-13 | 11 | SUMMONS Returned Executed as to US Department of Justice by Lawrence Watson. (Maynard, Timothy) (Entered: 11/13/2015) |
| 2015-12-28 | 12 | MOTION for Extension of Time to 1/27/2016 to File Answer re 1 Complaint by U.S. Department of Justice.(Johnson, Anita) (Entered: 12/28/2015) |
| 2016-01-13 | 13 | Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 12 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer re 1 Complaint U.S. Department of Justice answer due 1/27/2016. (Hourihan, Lisa) (Entered: 01/13/2016) |
| 2016-01-27 | 14 | ANSWER to 1 Complaint by U.S. Department of Justice.(Johnson, Anita) (Entered: 01/27/2016) |
| 2016-01-28 | 15 | NOTICE of Scheduling Conference Scheduling Conference set for 3/7/2016 02:15 PM in Courtroom 11 before Judge Denise J. Casper. (Hourihan, Lisa) (Entered: 01/28/2016) |
| 2016-02-29 | 16 | MOTION for Extension of Time to February 4, 2016 to File Rebuttal to Defendants' Answer by Lawrence Watson.(Maynard, Timothy) (Entered: 02/29/2016) |
| 2016-03-07 | 17 | Recommendations for Scheduling Order by Defendant . (Johnson, Anita) (Entered: 03/07/2016) |
| 2016-03-07 | 18 | Opposition by Lawrence Watson re 14 Answer to Complaint/Request for Dismissal. (Maynard, Timothy) (Entered: 03/07/2016) |
| 2016-03-07 | 19 | Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Denise J. Casper: Scheduling Conference held on 3/7/2016. Court denies 16 Motion for Extension of Time. Initial disclosures due by 3/21/16. Fact discovery to be completed by 5/23/2016. Summary Judgment Motions due by 6/6/2016. Hearing on summary judgment motion set for 7/14/16 at 2:00PM. If no summary judgment motion filed, hearing will be converted to an initial pretrial conference. The parties shall confer regarding the topics identified under Local Rule 16.5(d) and shall prepare and submit a joint pretrial memorandum in accordance with Local Rule 16.5(d) no later than five (5) business days prior to the pretrial conference. The pretrial memorandum shall also propose deadlines for the filing of motions in limine, proposed jury instructions, proposed jury voir dire and a proposed trial date. (Court Reporter: Debra Joyce at joycedebra@gmail.com.)(Attorneys present: Lawrence Watson pro se. Anita Johnson for the defendant.) (Hourihan, Lisa) (Entered: 03/08/2016) |
| 2016-03-08 | 20 | ELECTRONIC NOTICE Setting Hearing on Motion Motion Hearing or Initial Pretrial Conference set for 7/14/2016 02:00 PM in Courtroom 11 before Judge Denise J. Casper. (Hourihan, Lisa) (Entered: 03/08/2016) |
| 2016-06-03 | 21 | MOTION for Extension of Time to 6/27/2016 to File by U.S. Department of Justice.(Johnson, Anita) (Entered: 06/03/2016) |
| 2016-06-20 | 22 | Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 21 Motion for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motion to 6/27/16. The 7/14/16 hearing date will remain in place. (Hourihan, Lisa) (Entered: 06/20/2016) |
| 2016-06-22 | 23 | MOTION for Extension of Time to 7/6/2016 to File Dispositive Motion by U.S. Department of Justice.(Johnson, Anita) (Entered: 06/22/2016) |
| 2016-06-23 | 24 | Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered denying 23 Motion for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motions in light of the 7/14/16 hearing date. (Hourihan, Lisa) (Entered: 06/23/2016) |
| 2016-06-27 | 25 | MOTION for Summary Judgment by U.S. Department of Justice.(Johnson, Anita) (Entered: 06/27/2016) |
| 2016-06-27 | 26 | MEMORANDUM in Support re 25 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by U.S. Department of Justice. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Johnson, Anita) (Entered: 06/27/2016) |
| 2016-06-30 | 27 | AFFIDAVIT in Support re 25 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by U.S. Department of Justice. (Johnson, Anita) (Entered: 06/30/2016) |
| 2016-07-14 | 28 | ELECTRONIC NOTICE Canceling Hearing. In light of the message received today from Mr. Watson notifying the Court that he is unable to attend today's hearing and in light of the opposition to the summary judgment motion being due on 7/18/16, the Court cancels today's hearing. The Court will review the submissions and will decide if a hearing is warranted. (Hourihan, Lisa) (Entered: 07/14/2016) |
| 2016-07-20 | 29 | MOTION for Leave to File Late Opposition to Motion to Dismiss by Lawrence Watson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Document, # 2 Proposed Exhibits)(Maynard, Timothy) (Entered: 07/20/2016) |
| 2016-07-29 | 30 | Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 29 Motion for Leave to File Late Opposition to Motion to Dismiss. The Court has reviewed and considered D. 29-1 and D. 29-2 in its resolution of the pending motion for summary judgment, D. 25. (Maynard, Timothy) Modified on 7/29/2016 to edit docket text (Maynard, Timothy). (Entered: 07/29/2016) |
| 2016-07-29 | 31 | Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re 25 Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff Lawrence Watson ("Watson") brings this action against the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ"), alleging that DOJ has failed to respond to two Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") requests submitted by Watson. D. 1 ¶ 2. The Court scheduled this motion for hearing on July 14, 2016, D. 19, but Watson indicated on the day of the hearing that he would not be attend. D. 28. Accordingly, the Court did not hold the hearing and indicated that it would review whether such hearing was necessary in light of the filing of Watson's opposition. D. 28. Having reviewed the motion papers and Watson's opposition, D. 29-1, 29-2, the Court concludes that a hearing is not necessary and resolves this matter after having reviewed the parties' filings. Watson alleges that he submitted one FOIA request in October 2008 and another on March 8, 2013. Id. Watson's FOIA requests sought agency records regarding DOJs and Federal Bureau of Investigations ("FBI") "investigation[s] of [Watsons] numerous complaints of the violation of his constitutional and civil rights by state officers of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the City of Boston." Id. DOJ now moves for summary judgment. D. 25. For the reasons discussed below, DOJs motion for summary judgment is ALLOWED. Upon receiving a FOIA request, a government agency is obligated to make a good faith effort to search for the requested documents. See Oleskey ex rel. Boumediene v. U.S. Dep't. of Def. , 658 F. Supp. 2d 288, 294 (D. Mass. 2009) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The government agency must engage in a search that is "reasonably calculated to discover the requested documents." Church of Scientology Int'l v. U.S. Dep't of Justice , 30 F. 3d 224, 230 (1st Cir. 1994) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Whether the government has satisfied its obligation is "generally and most appropriately" resolved on a summary judgment motion. Nat'l Day Laborer Org. Network v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enf't , 811 F. Supp. 2d 713, 732 (S.D.N.Y 2011). The government agency is entitled to summary judgment if, after reading all of the facts and drawing all of the reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, the Court determines that the agency has proven that it has "fully discharged its obligations under FOIA." Fischer v. Dep't of Justice , 596 F. Supp. 2d 34, 42 (D.D.C. 2009) (quoting Greenberg v. U.S. Dep't of Treasury , 10 F. Supp. 2d 3, 11 (D.D.C. 1998)). The government agency must show that all documents that fall within the class requested by the nonmoving party have been produced, are unidentifiable or are subject to an exemption under FOIA. Gillin v. Internal Revenue Serv. , 980 F.2d 819, 821 (1st Cir. 1992). Agency affidavits may be sufficient to establish "the adequacy and results of [the agency's] search, and the validity of the exemptions it claims." Id. at 823. Only those affidavits that are controverted by contradictory evidence in the record or specific evidence of bad faith on the part of the government are not credited. See Maynard v. Central Intelligence Agency , 986 F.2d 547, 559 (1st Cir. 1993). Here, there are several affidavits that attest to the search that the FBI and the DOJ, respectively, conducted in response to Watsons FOIA requests. David M. Hardy, Section Chief of the Record/Information Dissemination Section of the FBI, submitted a detailed affidavit attesting to the search that the FBI undertook in response to Watsons March 2013 FOIA request, the form in which the 85 responsive pages were identified and then produced (in full, redacted form or withheld) and the applicable FOIA Exemptions that applied to the responsive documents withheld in full or in part. D. 26-1 ¶¶ 4 et seq . Susanne Husted's ("Husted") affidavit, submitted on behalf of the DOJ, describes the scope of the search conducted in response to Watson's FOIA requests. Husted is the FOIA point of contact for the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts ("USAO"), an office of the DOJ. D. 27 ¶ 1. In that role, her responsibilities include responding to FOIA requests and managing the USAO's FOIA database. Id. Thus, her evaluation of Watsons FOIA request "[is] made on the basis of [her] review of the official files and records of the [USAO]." Id. Husted describes the targeted search she undertook to identify the FOIA requests Watson has submitted and responsive documents. Id. ¶ 2. Husteds search of the USAO's files revealed that Watson had made a FOIA request dated October 28, 2008, an undated one and two other requests, dated November 26, 2003 and April 4, 2001, asking that the USAO "investigate the 'violation of [his] constitutional rights by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,' and harassment and malicious prosecution 'by a court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.'" Id. ¶ 3. On October 29, 2008, Husted's predecessor had responded to Watsons request indicating that his October 28, 2008 request had been forwarded to the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys ("EOUSA") for review. Id. ¶ 4. EOUSA responded that since Watson was requesting state records, he would have to do so from the state. Id. ¶ 5. (An affidavit from John F. Boseker at the EOUSA indicates this response to Watsons October 28, 2008 FOIA request. D. 26-2). EOUSA records also indicate that Watson sent another FOIA request on March 22, 2011; this FOIA request was forwarded to the United States Bureau of Prisons. Id. According to Husted, the USAO database has been searched and it does not contain any further information regarding this March 22, 2011 FOIA request or responsive to it. Id. In her affidavit, Susanne Husted attests that "any system of records within the [USAO] likely to contain records responsive to Watsons request has been searched." D. 27 ¶ 6. Husted declares that "the searches were conducted utilizing methods which should identify any responsive records." Id. Husted further attests that "there is no other location in the [USAO] where any other records which might be responsive to Plaintiffs requests are likely to be located." Id. These affidavits indicate that the FBI and DOJ undertook a meaningful, calculated and reasonably thorough search for responsive documents. As such, Husted's affidavit satisfies DOJ's "burden of demonstrating good faith as to the adequacy of its search." Moffat v. U.S. Dep't of Justice , No. 09-cv-12067-DJC, 2011 WL 3475440, at *8 (D. Mass. Aug. 5, 2011), aff'd , 716 F.3d 244 (1st Cir. 2013) (concluding that the government's affidavits that detailed the search methods employed were sufficiently specific to warrant dismissal). Watson has failed to meet his burden of rebutting DOJ's good faith showing. In his opposition, Watson asserts that "DOJ and its component entities have failed and have refused to comply fully with Plaintiff's FOIA requests." D. 29-1 ¶¶ 13, 16. The focus of the adequacy inquiry into DOJ's search is on the quality of the search itself, not the results of the search. See Oleskey ex rel. Boumediene , 658 F. Supp. 2d at 298 (citing Hornbostel v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior , 305 F. Supp. 2d 21, 28 (D.D.C. 2003)). Watson's arguments are conclusory and fail to specifically challenge the quality of DOJ's search. Moreover, Watson has presented no specific evidence of bad faith on DOJ's part. A speculative argument that other files must exist is unavailing because "[p]erfection is not the standard by which the reasonableness of a FOIA search is measured. Oleskey ex rel. Boumediene 658 F. Supp. 2d at 298 (citation omitted). Thus, Watson has not persuasively challenged Husted's assertion that the Defendants search was intentional, calculated and exhaustive. See Stalcup v. Dep't of Def. , No. 13-cv-11967-LTS, 2015 WL 5545059, at *4 (D. Mass. Sept. 18, 2015) (concluding that the FOIA requester's speculation, without more, was insufficient to rebut the agency's explanation of its good faith search process); see also Oleskey ex rel. Boumediene , 658 F. Supp. 2d at 298 (granting summary judgment where the FOIA requester presented "no persuasive reason" to doubt the government's affidavits detailing the calculated search for responsive documents). Accordingly, DOJ's motion for summary judgment is ALLOWED. D. 25. (Maynard, Timothy) (Entered: 07/29/2016) |
| 2016-08-01 | 32 | Judge Denise J. Casper: ORDER entered. JUDGMENT (Hourihan, Lisa) (Entered: 08/01/2016) |
 Hide Docket Events |
|
