Case Detail
Case Title | LANDMARK LEGAL FOUNDATION v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
District | District of Columbia | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
City | Washington, DC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Number | 1:2015cv01698 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Filed | 2015-10-16 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Closed | 2016-10-14 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Judge | Judge Tanya S. Chutkan | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Plaintiff | LANDMARK LEGAL FOUNDATION | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Description | Landmark Legal Foundation submitted two FOIA requests to the Department of Justice. The first request was submitted to the Office of Information Policy for records concerning the use of personal email accounts by senior DOJ officials to conduct public business. The second FOIA request asked for records concerning the creation and maintenance of any alias email accounts for senior DOJ officials. The agency did not respond to Landmark's alias request or Landmark's appeal of the delay. DOJ responded to the request for personal emails by indicating that it had no records. Landmark appealed to OIP, which concluded that the agency could not conduct a search for personal emails. Landmark then filed suit. Complaint issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation - Attorney's fees | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Complaint attachment 3 Complaint attachment 4 Complaint attachment 5 Complaint attachment 6 Opinion/Order [12] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Tanya Chutkan has ruled that the Department of Justice's Office of Information Policy and Civil Rights Division properly concluded that a request from Landmark Legal Foundation for records reflecting the use of personal email accounts to conduct government business does not sufficiently describe records subject to a search. OIP told Landmark that it could not search for the records requested and Civil Rights told Landmark that the request did not describe agency records. Chutkan noted that "the Plaintiff's request for 'records evincing the use of' personal email accounts and other electronic communication and social median platforms to conduct government business does not enable a professional DOJ employee to determine what records are being sought. Plaintiff does not define 'evince,' nor explain how a record can 'evince' the use of personal email or social media accounts. Plaintiff's request does not ask for specific records, but rather for any records that might suggest that other records exist. While the object of Plaintiff's requests may be to determine whether Department of Justice employees are using personal email accounts to conduct government business, Plaintiff cannot force the Department to answer that question through a FOIA request." She added that "Plaintiff may want a list of DOJ employees who use personal email for Department business, but FOIA only entitles it to such a list if the Department already has oneâ€"it does not require the Department to create one." Landmark argued that it was only requesting the Department to ask the employees whether they had conducted public business on their personal email accounts, search those accounts, and provide the results to the Department. Chutkan found such a search impractical. She observed that "an employee cannot search their personal email for 'instances in which I used my personal email to conduct government business'â€"such a search would not only be difficult to formulate, but would also likely not uncover responsive recordsâ€"rather, they would need a concrete and specific search term." Landmark claimed OIP had misunderstood its request and had improperly narrowed it. But Chutkan pointed out that "ultimately, regardless of whether Defendant misunderstood Plaintiff's intent in narrowing the scope of the search, Plaintiff has not made a request that adequately describes the records sought. Plaintiff's 'good faith effort' cannot convert an invalid and unreasonable request into a valid and reasonable one."
Issues: Request - Specificity | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|