RODRIGUEZ v. US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al
Filing
35
MEMORANDUM OPINION accompanying order on motion for summary judgment issued separately this day. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/11/16.(ah)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
)
VICTOR RODRIGUEZ,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al., )
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 14-cv-0191-TSC
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Victor Rodriguez, proceeding pro se, challenges the Executive Office
for United States Attorneys’ (EOUSA) inability to locate records responsive to his
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. Pending is the Department of Justice’s
(DOJ) and its component EOUSA’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 21). On
September 15, 2015, the Court postponed its ruling and directed Defendants to
provide additional information about the search--namely, the terms used and filing
systems searched. (See Mem. Op. and Order at 6-7, ECF No. 29.)
I. BACKGROUND
The relevant facts are recounted as follows. In December 2002, Plaintiff pled
guilty in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania “to
numerous crimes” and was sentenced in January 2004 to life imprisonment without
1
parole. United States v. Rodriguez, Crim. No. 98-362-12, 2012 WL 162297, at *1
(E.D. Pa. Jan. 18, 2012).
By letter dated June 18, 2013, Plaintiff requested from EOUSA the name of the
district judge in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania “who summoned the grand jury
in my criminal case #98-362-12,” the dates the grand jury was convened and
discharged, and the date the grand jury returned an indictment and superseding
indictment. (Decl. of Vinay Jolly, Ex. A, FOIA Request, ECF No. 21-3.) In response
to this lawsuit filed on February 3, 2014, EOUSA conducted a search and notified
Plaintiff by letter dated August 6, 2014, that it had located no responsive records.
(Id., Ex. H.)
II. ANALYSIS
Previously, the Court applauded the search efforts of EOUSA’s declarant,
Susan Falken, and it will not repeat those efforts here. (See Mem. Op. at 5-6.) Falken
now confirms that LIONS, the case management database used “to maintain, track,
and report information” for each United States Attorney’s Office, “does not track
Grand Jury information.” (Supp. Decl. of Susan J. Falken ¶¶ 4, 6, ECF No. 30-1.) In
addition, Falken states that she knows of no other location in the U.S. Attorney’s
Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania that is likely to locate responsive
records or “of any other [search] method or means . . . likely to locate any responsive
records.” (Id. ¶ 8.)
Plaintiff has not refuted the supplemental declaration, except Falken’s
statement in a footnote that Plaintiff was previously provided the date the grand jury
2
returned the indictment and the third superseding indictment. (Pl.’s Not. to the Court
¶ 6, ECF No. 32.) Defendants have not replied; thus, the Court will direct Defendants
to provide that information promptly to Plaintiff. In all other respects, the Court
concludes, in the absence of any contrary evidence, that Defendants conducted a
reasonably adequate search for responsive records and are entitled to judgment as a
matter of law. A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
Date: August 11, 2016
Tanya S. Chutkan
TANYA S. CHUTKAN
United States District Judge
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?