LADEAIROUS v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Filing
22
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on 3/9/2016. (KD)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
JOSEPH MICHAEL LADEAIROUS,
)
)
)
)
) Civ. Action No. 14-643 (RMC)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this action brought pro se under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5
U.S.C. § 552, plaintiff Joseph Michael Ladeairous challenges the Department of Justice’s norecords response to his request to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) for records
concerning himself. The Court initially found from the description of the FBI’s filing systems
that the failure to search for records by Mr. Ladeairous’ social security number, in addition to his
name, raised “substantial doubt about the adequacy of the search.” Dec. 16, 2014 Mem. Op. at 6
[Dkt. 13] (internal quotation marks omitted). In response to the Court’s ruling, the FBI searched
its Central Records System (CRS) by Mr. Ladeairous’ social security number but located no
responsive records. DOJ has supplemented the record and has renewed its motion for summary
judgment on the remaining search question [Dkt. 14]. 1 For the reasons explained below, the
1
Because the parties have raised the issue again, it bears repeating that DOJ’s invocation of FOIA
exemption 7(E) as the basis for neither confirming nor denying the existence of Mr. Ladeairous’
name on “any watch lists” is beyond the scope of this case. See Dec. 16, 2014 Mem. Op. at 5
(declining to address “either party’s arguments on this non-issue”).
1
Court will grant DOJ’s renewed motion for summary judgment and will enter judgment for
DOJ. 2
I. THE FBI’S SEARCH FOR RESPONSIVE RECORDS
In his initial declaration, Mr. Hardy provides a detailed description of the CRS
and explains why it is the system most likely to locate records responsive to Mr. Ladeairous’
request. The search was designed to locate any responsive records at FBI Headquarters “and all
field offices specific to plaintiff’s requested timeframe.” Decl. of David M. Hardy ¶ 18 [Dkt. 141]. The search terms “included variations of a phonetic breakdown of plaintiff’s first, middle
and last name,” id., which is how records are catalogued and retrieved, see id. ¶¶ 13-14, 17. The
FBI’s second search, conducted during the course of litigation, was broadened “to include crossreferences,” utilizing the same name variations and timeframe. Id. ¶ 19. A cross reference “is
generally only a mere mention or reference to an individual . . . contained in a document located
in another ‘main’ file on a different subject matter.” Id. ¶ 13(b). “[N]o cross-references indexed
to ‘Joseph Michael Ladeairous’ were located.” Id. ¶ 19.
In his supplemental declaration, Mr. Hardy explains why the FBI’s initial search
did not include Mr. Ladeairous’ social security number. According to Mr. Hardy, a search solely
by a requester’s social security number is generally not performed. Rather, a requester’s social
2
Also pending is Mr. Ladeairous’ collection of four motions seeking discovery via document
production, interrogatories, admissions, and “written depositions” [Dkt. 19]. The Court will
summarily deny the motions because they concern matters that are well beyond the scope of this
FOIA action. Moreover, “[d]iscovery in FOIA is rare and should be denied where,” as found here,
“an agency’s declarations are reasonably detailed, submitted in good faith and the court is satisfied
that no factual dispute remains,” and where there is no evidence of agency “bad faith.” Baker &
Hostetler LLP, 473 F.3d 312, 318 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (quoting Schrecker v. DOJ, 217 F. Supp. 2d
29, 35 (D.D.C. 2002)).
2
security number is used “as a means of confirming that any records located through a search of a
subject’s name [is], in fact, about the subject.” Second Decl. of David M. Hardy ¶ 9 [Dkt. 14-2].
The FBI’s name-only search failed to locate responsive records; consequently, searching by Mr.
Ladearious’ social security number “or any other identifiers” became a moot point “because
there were no records that [the Record/Information Dissemination Section] needed to confirm
were actually about plaintiff.” Id. ¶ 10.
Now that the FBI has searched its main and cross-reference files by Mr.
Ladearious’ name and social security number, and has provided a reasonable explanation for the
initial omission of the social security number as a search term, the Court finds that the FBI made
“a good faith effort to conduct a search for the requested records, using methods which can
reasonably be expected to produce the information requested.” Dec. 16, 2014 Mem. Op. at 3
(quoting Oglesby v. United States Dep't of the Army, 920 F.2d 57, 68 (D.C. Cir. 1990)).
II. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that defendant DOJ has now
demonstrated its full compliance with FOIA and is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Plaintiff’s Motion for the Production of Documents, Motion for Interrogatories, Motion for
Admissions, Motion for Written Depositions, and Motion for the Appointment of Counsel for
Written Depositions [Dkt. 19] will be denied, and Defendant’s Renewed Motion for Summary
Judgment [Dkt. 14] will be granted. Judgment will be entered for the Defendant. A
memorializing Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
Date: March 9, 2016
__________/s/____________
ROSEMARY M. COLLYER
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?