Godaire v. Napolitano et al

Filing 30

Ruling and ORDER granting 15 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 7/25/11. (Brown, S.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

RAYMOND PETER GODAIRE,

:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, :
:
Defendant.
:

No. 3:10cv01266 (MRK)

RULING AND ORDER
Plaintiff Raymond Peter Godaire filed his Complaint [doc. # 1] pro se and in forma
pauperis, asserting claims under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552. On
November 17, 2010, the Court issued an Initial Review Order [doc. # 3] dismissing Mr.
Godaire's claims against all but two of the Defendants named in the Complaint. On May 19,
2011, the Court issued a Ruling and Order [doc. # 28] directing the Clerk to add the United
States Department of Justice ("DOJ") as a Defendant and to terminate the remaining two original
Defendants, DOJ's Inspector General and Attorney General Eric Holder. See Ruling and Order
[doc. # 28] at 1-2 (noting the Court's obligation to construe a pro se complaint liberally and
construing Mr. Godaire's Complaint to state a claim against DOJ and not merely against
individual employees of that agency). Pending before the Court is DOJ's Motion for Summary
Judgment [doc. # 15]. The Court GRANTS that motion.
I.
The facts of this case are taken from the parties' Local Rule 56(a) Statements. Unless
otherwise noted, the facts are undisputed. Where disputes or ambiguities exist, the facts are
construed in the light most favorable to Mr. Godaire, the nonmoving party.

In a letter dated June 11, 2010, Mr. Godaire submitted a FOIA request to the Office of the
Inspector General of the Department of Justice ("the OIG"). In his letter, Mr. Godaire requested
"a copy of your investigation regarding my complaint of 2/11/09." Letter from Raymond Peter
Godaire to Inspector General, Dept. of Justice, June 11, 2010, Ex. 1 to Pl.'s Local R. 56(a)2
Statement [doc. # 18-3] at 5. In the event that "no investigation was held," Mr. Godaire requested
"a copy of all documents upon which [the agency] decided the law did not apply to the
Department of Justice." Id. at 6. Mr. Godaire's letter was delivered to DOJ on June 16, 2010. See
Pl.'s Local R. 56(a)2 Statement, Disputed Issues of Material Fact ¶ 8 [doc. # 18-3] at 2; U.S.P.S.
Track/Confirm - Intranet Item Inquiry, id. at 8. The OIG's Office of General Counsel – the
division of the OIG that handles FOIA requests – received Mr. Godaire's letter on August 16,
2010. See Def.'s Local R. 56(a)1 Statement [doc. # 15-2] ¶ 8; Waller Decl. [doc. # 15-3] ¶¶ 5-6;
Ex. 1 to Reply to Pl.'s Opp'n to Mot. for Summary J. [doc. # 21] at 9.1
The OIG maintains records relating to its investigative duties in the Investigations Data
Management System ("IDMS"), an electronic database. The investigative records stored in
IDMS are indexed by names of the individual subject or subjects and by the name of the
complainant. Therefore, investigative records can be searched electronically by the names of

1

It should be noted that in its Local Rule 56(a)1 Statement, the Government alleges that "[t]he 
OIG received Plaintiff's FOIA request on August 16, 2010, as evidenced by a 'Received' stamp
dated 8/16/2010, placed on . . . the letter by OIG's Office of General Counsel." Def.'s Local R.
56(a)1 Statement [doc. # 15-2] ¶ 8; see Ex. 1 to Reply to Pl.'s Opp'n to Mot. for Summary J.
[doc. # 21] at 9. The declaration cited by the Government in support of that allegation in fact
states that it is possible that Mr. Godaire's letter may not have been "routed to the [Office of
General Counsel] for 1 to 2 days after delivery to the OIG." Waller Decl. [doc. # 15-3] ¶ 5. Mr.
Godaire disputes the assertion that the OIG did not receive his request until mid-August,
claiming on the basis of a postal record that his letter was delivered on June 16, 2010 and signed
for by one "M. Power." See Pl.'s Local R. 56(a)2 Statement, Disputed Issues of Material Fact ¶ 8
[doc. # 18-3] at 2. However, the evidence cited by Mr. Godaire does not contradict DOJ's claim
that Mr. Godaire's letter was not received by the OIG's Office of General Counsel – as opposed
to, for instance, the DOJ mail facility, see Waller Decl. [doc. # 15-3] ¶ 5 – until August 16, 2010.
2

those individuals. IDMS is the sole and exclusive records system for the store of records relating
to complaints of misconduct received by the OIG and to investigations of those complaints by
the OIG.
On August 16, 2010, the OIG conducted an electronic search of the IDMS for records
responsive to Mr. Godaire's FOIA request, using Mr. Godaire's name or a reasonable variation of
his name. See Waller Decl. [doc. # 15-3] ¶ 8. The OIG found no records responsive to Mr.
Godaire's particular request concerning his complaint allegedly dated in February 2009. See id.
IDMS was the only records system likely to contain records responsive to Mr. Godaire's request,
and the OIG searched that system using the most accurate means of identifying any such records
– Mr. Godaire's name and a reasonable variation of his name. See id. By letter dated August 17,
2010, the OIG responded to Mr. Godaire's FOIA request, advising him that the agency had found
no documents responsive to his request. See id. ¶ 9; Ex. 2 to Reply to Pl.'s Opp'n to Mot. for
Summary J. [doc. # 21] at 11.2
Mr. Godaire filed his Complaint [doc. # 1] with this Court on August 9, 2010.
II.
As with all motions for summary judgment, summary judgment in a FOIA action should
be granted only if the moving party "shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact
and the [moving party] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). On a
motion for summary judgment in a FOIA action, "the defending agency has the burden of
showing that its search was adequate and that any withheld documents fall within an exemption

2

In his Local Rule 56(a)2 Statement [doc. # 18-3], Mr. Godaire notes that the August 17, 2010
letter was not included as an exhibit to the Government's Local Rule 56(a)1 Statement or in any
of its previous filings. See Pl.'s Local R. 56(a)2 Statement [doc. # 18-3] at 3. In its Reply, the
Government has explained that the August 17, 2010 letter "may have been inadvertently omitted
from the government's summary judgment papers," and a copy of the letter is attached to the
Reply as "Exhibit 2." Reply to Pl.'s Opp'n to Mot. for Summary J. [doc. # 21] at 7, 11.
3

to the FOIA." Carney v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 19 F.3d 807, 812 (2d Cir. 1994) (citing 5 U.S.C.
§ 552(a)(4)(B); EPA v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73, 79 (1973)). To satisfy that burden, the agency may
rely on "[a]ffidavits or declarations supplying facts indicating that the agency has conducted a
thorough search and [explaining in reasonable detail] why any withheld documents fall within an
exemption." Id. (citations omitted).
To establish the adequacy of a search, an agency affidavit or declaration must be
"relatively detailed and non-conclusory" and "submitted in good faith." SafeCard Services, Inc.
v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197, 1200 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (quotation marks and citation omitted); see Wood
v. FBI, 432 F.3d 78, 85 (2d Cir. 2005). This means, for instance, that an agency affidavit or
declaration must describe in reasonable detail the scope of the search and the search terms or
methods employed. See, e.g., Maynard v. CIA, 986 F.2d 547, 559 (1st Cir. 1993); N.Y. Times Co.
v. U.S. Dep't of Def., 499 F. Supp. 2d 501, 518 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). Because "[a]ffidavits submitted
by an agency are accorded a presumption of good faith[,] . . . discovery relating to the agency's
search and the exemptions it claims for withholding records generally is unnecessary if the
agency's submissions are adequate on their face." Carney, 19 F.3d at 812 (quotation marks and
citation omitted).
III.
In this case, DOJ has submitted the declaration of Deborah Marie Waller, the Paralegal
Specialist and FOIA Officer for the OIG. See Waller Decl. [doc. # 15-3] ¶ 1. Ms. Waller's
detailed declaration reveals that, within a day of the OIG's receipt of Mr. Godaire's FOIA
request, she conducted a search of IDMS – the sole records system that might contain documents
of the sort requested by Mr. Godaire. Although Ms. Waller does not have a record of the search
terms she used, based on her "custom and practice," she is "confident that [she] searched IDMS

4

for references to [Mr. Godaire's] name using the name and variations of his name that he
provided." Id. ¶ 8. Ms. Waller states that she "may . . . have included a date range in [her] search
request," but "do[es] not have a specific recollection of doing so." Id. According to Ms. Waller's
declaration, her search found no documents responsive to Mr. Godaire's FOIA request. See id.
Ms. Waller also declares that in preparing her declaration, she conducted a second
electronic search of IDMS "for any records relating to [Mr. Godaire]," id. ¶ 10, and that her
second search, like her original search, found no records responsive to Mr. Godaire's FOIA
request. See id. Ms. Waller notes that in her second search she did locate a record related to a
letter the OIG received from Mr. Godaire in April 2005 in which Mr. Godaire alleged that his
civil rights had been "abused" and that he had been subject to threats. Id. (quotation marks
omitted). The record she discovered "reflect[ed] that [Mr. Godaire's] 2005 letter was handled as
'information only' and the OIG did not open an investigation." Id.
Given that IDMS is the sole and exclusive records system for the store of records relating
to complaints of misconduct received by OIG and to investigations of those complaints by OIG,
and given that records in IDMS are organized by names of the individual subject or subjects and
by the name of the complainant, the search described by Ms. Waller in her declaration was
reasonably calculated to discover documents responsive to Mr. Godaire's FOIA request.
Therefore, DOJ has satisfied its burden.
IV.
Mr. Godaire previously filed a Motion for Discovery [doc. # 19], which the Court denied.
"[D]iscovery relating to [an] agency's search and the exemptions it claims for withholding
records generally is unnecessary if the agency's submissions are adequate on their face." Carney,
19 F.3d at 812. "In order to justify discovery once the agency has satisfied its burden, the

5

plaintiff must make a showing of bad faith on the part of the agency sufficient to impugn the
agency's affidavits or declarations . . . or provide some tangible evidence that . . . summary
judgment is otherwise inappropriate." Id. (citations omitted). Mr. Godaire has submitted no
evidence indicating that Ms. Waller's declaration was made in bad faith or that the OIG did not
actually conduct a search of the type described in Ms. Waller's declaration. Nor is there any
evidence that, contrary to Ms. Waller's declaration, records responsive to Mr. Godaire's FOIA
request were discovered but withheld from Mr. Godaire.
In his response to the Government's Local Rule 56(a)1 Statement, Mr. Godaire alleges
that "[t]he OIG has no backlog of FOIA request[s] or complaints because [it] destroys them."
Pl.'s Local R. 56(a)2 Statement, Disputed Issues of Material Fact ¶ 12 [doc. # 18-3] at 3.
However, no evidence in the record supports that allegation. As the Second Circuit has stated,
the presumption of good faith accorded to agency affidavits and declarations "cannot be rebutted
by 'purely speculative claims about the existence and discoverability of other documents.'"
Grand Cent. P'ship, Inc. v. Cuomo, 166 F.3d 473, 489 (2d Cir. 1999) (quoting SafeCard
Services, 926 F.2d at 1200).
V.
For the foregoing reasons, DOJ's Motion for Summary Judgment [doc. # 15] is
GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment for the Defendant and to close this file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/

Dated at New Haven, Connecticut: July 25, 2011.
6

Mark R. Kravitz
United States District Judge