AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY et al
Filing
30
MEMORANDUM ORDER denying Defendants' 16 Motion for Summary Judgment and denying Plaintiff's 20 Motion for Discovery. See the attached Memorandum Order for additional details. It is further ORDERED that the parties shall appear for a status conference to discuss further proceedings in this matter on April 19, 2018 at 10 a.m. in Courtroom 2, before Judge Trevor N. McFadden. Signed by Judge Trevor N. McFadden on 3/30/2018. (lctnm3)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS
ASSOCIATION,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:16-cv-02470 (TNM)
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Plaintiff American Immigration Lawyers Association (“AILA”) is a non-profit
organization that provides to the public continuing legal education and information regarding
immigration issues and policy. Compl. ¶ 20, ECF No. 2. This content includes agency
guidance, interpretations, and policy memoranda. Id. In July 2013, AILA submitted a Freedom
of Information Request (“FOIA”) to the United States Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”),
a component of the Department of Homeland Security (collectively, the “Government”), seeking
documents pertaining to any instructions disseminated to customs officers at United States portsof-entry about the discontinuation of the Inspector’s Field Manual (“IFM”), the implementation
of the Officer’s Reference Tool (“ORT”), as well as the “portions of the ORT that have been
finalized and implemented for use in the field-ports-of-entry.” Id. ¶ 30.
After more than three years without receiving the requested information, AILA filed a
Complaint seeking an order requiring the Government to process and produce records responsive
to its request. Id. at 11. The Government produced responsive records to AILA between March
and June 2017, the sum total of which consisted of: (i) a one-page memorandum and one-page
muster1 relating to the discontinuation of the IFM; (ii) a 25-page index of Chapter 11 of the
ORT, with 31 document titles redacted;2 and (iii) a one-page index of Chapter 12 of the ORT.
Pl.’s Opp. 4-5. The Government states that Chapters 11 and 12 are the only parts of the ORT
that are drafted to date, and has moved for summary judgment on the bases that its search for
responsive records was adequate and that its redactions are proper. Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of
Defs.’ Mot. for Summary J. (“Defs.’ Mot. for Summary J.”) 7-14, ECF No. 16. AILA has
moved for limited discovery to depose the authors of two declarations submitted by the
Government in support of its motion. Pl.’s Mot. for Limited Discovery 1, ECF No. 20.
Upon consideration of the Government’s Motion for Summary Judgment, the pleadings,
relevant law, and related legal memoranda in opposition and in support, I find that the
Government has not “demonstrate[d] beyond material doubt that its search was reasonably
calculated to uncover all relevant documents.” Nation Magazine, Washington Bureau v. U.S.
Customs Serv., 71 F.3d 885, 890 (D.C. Cir. 1995). With respect to AILA’s request about the
discontinuation of the IFM and implementation of the ORT, the Government’s affidavits, which
I afford a “presumption of good faith,” are not “reasonably detailed” so that it can be determined
that the search methods used were “reasonably expected to produce the information requested.”
See SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. S.E.C., 926 F.2d 1197, 1200 (D.C. Cir. 1991); Oglesby v. U.S. Dep’t
of Army, 920 F.2d 57, 68 (D.C. Cir. 1990). The Government summarily attested that it
“disclosed additional records relating to the discontinuation of the Inspector’s Field Manual
1
A muster is a briefing document that is communicated to CBP personnel at the beginning of a
work shift or on a regular basis. Pl.’s Combined Opp. to Defs.’ Mot. for Summary J. and Mem.
in. Supp. of Mot. for Limited Discovery (“Pl.’s Opp.”) 4 n.4, ECF No. 17.
2
The index was originally produced with 66 document titles redacted; the Government
thereafter produced a second version of the document which removed 35 of the redactions. Pl.’s
Opp. 18-19.
2
(IFM) to AILA” and that “[a]s the ORT has not been drafted, CBP did not locate any documents
related to the implementation of the ORT.” Decl. of Patrick Howard ¶ 7, ECF No. 16-2. These
perfunctory statements do not detail how the agency went about its search and why those
methods are appropriate to produce the information requested. Although the agency is not
required to search every system if additional searches are unlikely to produce any marginal
return, here, the Government has utterly failed to describe the systems searched, much less why
its method is “reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents.” See Campbell v. U.S.
Dep’t of Justice, 164 F.3d 20, 208 (D.C. Cir. 1998); Nation Magazine, 71 F.3d at 890. Without
further explanation—for example, “which files were searched or by whom,” Weisberg v. U.S.
Dep’t of Justice, 627 F.2d 365, 371 (D.C. Cir. 1980) or “which files or record systems were
examined . . . and how any searches were conducted, including, where relevant, which search
terms were used to hunt within electronically stored materials,” Reporters Comm. for Freedom of
Press v. F.B.I., 877 F.3d 399, 404 (D.C. Cir. 2017)—granting summary judgment on the
adequacy of the Government’s search is premature.
With respect to AILA’s request for the “finalized and implemented portions of the ORT,”
since the ORT was not yet finalized at the time of the Government’s search, the Government
liberally construed the request as seeking a working substitute. Defs.’ Mot. for Summary J. 9;
see also Nation Magazine, 71 F.3d at 890 (“[A]n agency also has a duty to construe a FOIA
request liberally.”). The Government then produced the “only two parts of the ORT that exist—
Chapter 11 and Chapter 12.” Decl. of James Ryan Hutton ¶ 6, ECF No. 16-2. Both of these
chapters are indices that list “various policies, memoranda, guides, manuals, musters” and the
applicable “laws, regulations and government systems.” Id. ¶¶ 7-8. Neither chapter, however,
itself contains the underlying information but rather provides links to access the documents,
3
websites, or systems. Id. The Government argues that because the chapters only provide crossreferences to the underlying documents, and “[m]ere reference to other files does not establish
the existence of documents that are relevant to [a] FOIA request,” Steinberg v. U.S. Dep’t of
Justice, 23 F.3d 548, 552 (D.C. Cir. 1994), its search was responsive to AILA’s request which
only sought “the portions of the ORT that have been finalized and implemented for use in the
field.” Reply to Pl.’s Opp. 7, ECF No. 23.3 The Government’s position is too clever by half.
While it properly liberally construed AILA’s request to produce a working substitute in lieu of a
finalized manual, the Government adopted a hyper-technical approach to the contents of the
manual. It is clear that AILA, as an organization that provides information about immigration
issues and policy to the public, sought the Government’s policies and procedures with respect to
entry into the United States. Thus, a reading that constrains AILA’s request merely to an index
of applicable policies of documents, but not a review, at minimum, of those policies or
documents for responsiveness is too narrow. The Government is obligated to review and
disclose responsive records—to include the underlying policies or documents that make up the
3
Steinberg involved a FOIA request seeking information about the United States’ release of
information to Swedish authorities about the 1986 assassination of Swedish Prime Minister Olaf
Palme. Id. at 549-50. On appeal, the FOIA requestor argued that the district court erroneously
granted summary judgment on the adequacy of the search because the FBI failed to review 19
documents and 6 files cross-referenced in several disclosed documents. Id. at 552. The D.C.
Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that “[t]here is no doubt about completeness” of the
search and that explained that the cross-references, on their own, did not establish that other
responsive documents existed. Id. Dissimilar circumstances are presented here, where the
existence of these records—“various policies, memoranda, guides, manuals, musters and other
related documents”—is not contested. See Decl. of James Ryan Hutton ¶ 7. Instead of arguing
that other responsive records do not exist at all, the Government here argues the technicality that
they do not exist within Chapter 11, as it only “provides a link to access the documents.” See id.
This is incongruous with the Government’s obligation to conduct “a search reasonably calculated
to uncover all relevant documents.” See Morley v. CIA, 508 F.3d 1108, 1114 (D.C. Cir. 2007).
4
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?