Case Detail

FOIA Project Annotation: Apparently wrapping up the last of the suits brought by four different plaintiffs, all of whom were convicted of drug-related charges in the Western District of Pennsylvania, Judge James Boasberg has ruled that the Justice Department's Criminal Division conducted an adequate search for wiretap authorization memos requested by Brandon Thompson and that the agency properly invoked Exemption 5 (attorney work product privilege) in withholding all responsive records. While Judge Richard Leon roundly criticized DOJ in his ruling in Gilliam v. Dept of Justice for failing to recognize the similarities in the cases, Boasberg chided the agency further. Brandon Thompson requested wiretap authorization records pertaining to his conviction on drug charges. The agency searched its Office of Enforcement database and relevant email archives, found responsive records, but then denied them all under Exemption 5, Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy), Exemption 7(C) (invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records), and subsection (j)(2) of the Privacy Act. As in the other three cases, Thompson argued the agency should have searched more than the database and the archived emails. But Boasberg pointed out that "because Plaintiff offers no evidence indicating that another record system or search term might have yielded additional responsive materials, he has proffered no basis on which to challenge the reasonableness or thoroughness of this search." While he found that the OEO database qualified for exemption under (j)(2) of the Privacy Act, Boasberg indicated that the email archives were not an exempt system of records. Instead, he noted that "the agency's email archive is not a 'system of records' subject to the access provisions of the Privacy Act, so a statutory exemption is not required." He then pointed out that all the wiretap authorization memos "are classic attorney work product, the disclosure of which would risk putting DOJ lawyers' thought processes and strategy on public display." Recognizing that some of the records served quasi-administrative purposes, he observed that "because these quasi-administrative records were compiled in anticipation of a specific criminal prosecution and are not generic agency records maintained for some conceivable future litigation, this Court joins several other courts in this District that have held that the work-product privilege protects them." Boasberg rejected Thompson's argument that the agency had not reviewed the records for non-exempt materials. He indicated that "a segregability analysis is not required in this case, where the Court has deemed all responsive materials properly exempt from FOIA's disclosure requirements under the attorney-work-product protection prescribed by Exemption 5." Boasberg ended by sharply criticizing DOJ's litigation behavior in these related cases. He noted that "as the government is the Defendant in each [of these cases], and as each case was filed in this district, it seems rather surprising that the government never brought these strikingly similar cases to the Court's attention." Boasberg observed, however, that DOJ had cut and pasted 15 pages from its motion into its reply brief. Emphasizing that he expected more from the government, he indicated that "the Court trusts that Defendantsâ€"who are repeat players in these types of FOIA mattersâ€"will endeavor to present it with more useful submissions in the future."
Issues: Adequacy - Search, Exemption 5 - Privileges - Attorney work-product privilege

Date Filed	Doc #	Docket Text
2014-10-23		SUMMONS Not Issued as to KENNETH COURTER, SEAN R. O'NEILL, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CRIMINAL DIVISION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF INFORMATION POLICY (td, ) (Entered: 10/24/2014)
2014-10-24	1	COMPLAINT against KENNETH COURTER, SEAN R. O'NEILL, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CRIMINAL DIVISION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF INFORMATION POLICY ( Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 4616066614) with Jury Demand filed by BRANDON THOMPSON. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(td, ) (Entered: 10/24/2014)
2014-11-14		SUMMONS (6) Issued as to KENNETH COURTER, SEAN R. O'NEILL, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CRIMINAL DIVISION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF INFORMATION POLICY, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (td, ) (Entered: 11/14/2014)
2015-01-12	2	MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint by KENNETH COURTER, SEAN R. O'NEILL, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CRIMINAL DIVISION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF INFORMATION POLICY (Truong, John) (Entered: 01/12/2015)
2015-01-12		MINUTE ORDER GRANTING 2 Motion for Extension of Time. The Court ORDERS that Defendant shall have until February 17, 2015, to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 1/12/15. (lcjeb2) (Entered: 01/12/2015)
2015-01-13		Set/Reset Deadline: The Defendant shall have until 2/17/2015, to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint. (kt) (Entered: 01/13/2015)
2015-01-22	3	NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL by Rhonda Lisa Campbell on behalf of KENNETH COURTER, SEAN R. O'NEILL, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CRIMINAL DIVISION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF INFORMATION POLICY Substituting for attorney John C. Truong (Campbell, Rhonda) (Entered: 01/22/2015)
2015-02-18	4	MOTION for Summary Judgment by KENNETH COURTER, SEAN R. O'NEILL, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CRIMINAL DIVISION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF INFORMATION POLICY (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts, # 2 Memorandum in Support, # 3 Declaration John Cunningham, # 4 Exhibit A-G)(Campbell, Rhonda) (Entered: 02/18/2015)
2015-02-19	5	ORDER directing Plaintiff to respond to Defendants' 4 Motion for Summary Judgment no later than March 12, 2015. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 2/19/15. (lcjeb2) (Entered: 02/19/2015)
2015-02-19		Set/Reset Deadline: The Plaintiff shall respond to Defendants' 4 Motion for Summary Judgment by 3/12/2015. (ad) (Entered: 02/19/2015)
2015-03-13	7	MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint by BRANDON THOMPSON; (See docket entry no. 6 to view document) (td, ) (Entered: 03/17/2015)
2015-03-17	6	MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 4 MOTION for Summary Judgment by BRANDON THOMPSON (td, ) (Entered: 03/17/2015)
2015-03-17		MINUTE ORDER: The Court ORDERS that Plaintiff's 6 Motion for Extension of time is GRANTED, and he shall have until April 15, 2015, to oppose Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff's 7 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint is DENIED. He neither explains why he wishes to file an amended complaint nor how it would differ from his current complaint. In addition, he does not attach a proposed amended complaint, as required. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 3/17/15. (lcjeb2) (Entered: 03/17/2015)
2015-03-17		Set/Reset Deadline: Plaintiff shall have until 4/15/2015, to oppose Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (ad) (Entered: 03/17/2015)
2015-04-22		MINUTE ORDER: On February 19, 2015, the Court ordered Plaintiff to respond to Defendants' motion for summary judgment by March 12, 2015, or face the risk that judgment would be entered against him. See ECF No. 5. After Plaintiff moved for an extension, the Court ordered on March 17, 2015, that he should have until April 15, 2015. See Minute Order of 3/17/15. As Plaintiff has still failed to file any response, the Court ORDERS that Defendants' 4 Motion is GRANTED, and judgment is ENTERED in their favor and against Plaintiff. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 4/22/15. (lcjeb2) (Entered: 04/22/2015)
2015-04-23	8	CLERK'S JUDGMENT in favor of Defendants against Plaintiff. (ad) (Entered: 04/23/2015)
2015-05-28	9	LEAVE TO FILE DENIED- Plaintiff's Motion for an Enlargement of Time to Oppose Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing.. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 5/28/15. (td) (Entered: 06/01/2015)
2015-06-02	10	LEAVE TO FILE DENIED- Plaintiff's Motion in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, and Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint "Leave to file DENIED. Case Closed on 4/23/15" This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing.. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 6/2/15. (td) (Entered: 06/02/2015)
2015-06-02	11	LEAVE TO FILE DENIED- Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint" Leave to file DENIED. Case Closed on 4/23/15" This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing.. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 6/2/14. (td) (Entered: 06/02/2015)
2015-06-24	12	MOTION for Reconsideration re Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,, by BRANDON THOMPSON (td) (Entered: 06/26/2015)
2015-08-18	13	ORDER: The Court ORDERS that: 1) Plaintiff's 12 Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED; 2) the Judgment is VACATED; 3) the Clerk shall reopen the case; and 4) Plaintiff must file his opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment by September 14, 2015. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 8/18/15.(lcjeb1) (Entered: 08/18/2015)
2015-08-18		Set/Reset Deadline: Plaintiff must file his opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment by 9/14/2015. (ad) (Entered: 08/18/2015)
2015-09-15	14	MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint, by BRANDON THOMPSON (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Amended Complaint)(td) (Entered: 09/16/2015)
2015-09-15	15	Memorandum in opposition to re 4 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by BRANDON THOMPSON. (td) (Entered: 09/16/2015)
2015-09-28	16	REPLY to opposition to motion re 4 MOTION for Reconsideration re Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,, filed by KENNETH COURTER, SEAN R. O'NEILL, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CRIMINAL DIVISION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF INFORMATION POLICY. (Campbell, Rhonda) Modified on 9/29/2015 to add correct linkage (td). (Entered: 09/28/2015)
2015-10-13	17	ORDER denying 14 Motion to Amend/Correct the Complaint. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 10/13/15. (lcjeb3) (Entered: 10/13/2015)
2015-11-03	18	Mail Returned as undeliverable. Mail sent to Brandon Thompson; Type of Document Returned: 17 Order; New address: Unknown. (tg) (Entered: 11/03/2015)
2015-11-19	19	ORDER GRANTING Defendants' 4 Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court ORDERS that 1) Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED; and 2) Judgment is ENTERED in favor of Defendants. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 11/19/15.(lcjeb3) (Entered: 11/19/2015)
2015-11-19	20	MEMORANDUM OPINION re: 19 Order on Defendants' 4 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 11/19/15. (lcjeb3) (Entered: 11/19/2015)
Hide Docket Events