Kuzma v. U.S. Department of Justice
Filing
34
DECISION AND ORDER: For the reasons set forth herein, Defendant's 10 motion for summary judgment is granted. Plaintiff's 14 cross motion for summary judgment is granted with respect to attorney's fees but is otherwise denied. This matter is recommitted to Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy for further proceedings consistent with the Decision and Order. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Richard J. Arcara on 9/19/2022. (LAS)
Case 1:16-cv-00347-RJA-JJM Document 34 Filed 09/19/22 Page 1 of 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
______________________________________
MICHAEL KUZMA,
Plaintiff,
DECISION AND ORDER
16-CV-347
v.
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Defendant.
______________________________________
This Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) case filed by Plaintiff Michael Kuzma
was referred to Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)
for the performance of pretrial proceedings. Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit seeking the
disclosure of records under FOIA, 5 U.S.C. ' 552, that he alleges were improperly
withheld by Defendant Department of Justice.
Defendant moved for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 56, arguing that the search conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(“FBI” – one of Defendant’s component agencies) for responsive records was adequate,
and that its response to Plaintiff’s disclosure request was proper. Dkt. 10. Plaintiff crossmoved for summary judgment arguing that the FBI’s search was inadequate, and the
Plaintiff was entitled to attorney’s fees under FOIA. Dkt. 14. Defendant filed a reply brief
in which it argued Plaintiff’s award of attorney’s fees should be limited to the timeframe
from May 4, 2016 to January 25, 2017 (i.e., the date the Complaint was filed through the
date that Defendant first disclosed responsive records). Dkt. 15.
1
Case 1:16-cv-00347-RJA-JJM Document 34 Filed 09/19/22 Page 2 of 5
On November 5, 2019, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”). Dkt. 22. The R&R recommends: (1) granting Defendant summary judgment on
the sufficiency of Defendant’s search; (2) granting Defendant summary judgment on the
issue of segregability; (3) denying both parties summary judgment on the applicability of
FOIA exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C); (4) granting Defendant summary judgment on the
applicability of FOIA exemptions (b)(7)(D) and (b)(7)(E); and (5) granting in part and
denying in part Plaintiff’s claim for attorney’s fees, specifically, granting for the
timeframe that Defendant suggested in its reply brief and denying for all other times.
On November 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed timely objections to the R&R. Dkt. 23. On
December 3, 2019, Defendant filed a response in opposition to Plaintiff’s objections to
the R&R. Dkt. 25. This Court directed Defendant to file supplemental briefing (Dkt. 29),
which was received on July 22, 2022 in the form of the Declaration of Michael Seidel.
Dkt. 32. Oral argument took place on August 17, 2022, and the matter was deemed
submitted. Dkt. 33.
The Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the R&R pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
' 636(b)(1). To the extent that the parties have made timely and specific objections to the
Magistrate Judge's R&R, the standard of review is de novo. Id.
Upon due consideration of the arguments, and after careful review of the record,
including the Seidel Declaration, the Court adopts the conclusions of the R&R that
Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on the issues of (1) the adequacy of its
search, (2) segregability, and (3) the applicability of asserted FOIA exemptions (b)(7)(D)
and (b)(7)(E). The Court adopts the reasoning of the Magistrate Judge as set forth in the
2
Case 1:16-cv-00347-RJA-JJM Document 34 Filed 09/19/22 Page 3 of 5
R&R and also credits the Seidel Declaration with respect to the threshold issue of the
adequacy of the search.
The Court rejects the R&R insofar as it finds that Defendant is not entitled to
summary judgment on the issue of the applicability of asserted FOIA exemptions (b)(6)
and (b)(7)(C). In light of Defendant’s supplemental filing and facts presented at oral
argument, it is clear that the Defendant took additional steps to ascertain the life status of
the individuals in question after the R&R was issued. The Seidel Declaration states:
…the FBI first conducted a page-by-page review of the records
and gathered a list of all the names of withheld individuals. It
then gathered their personal identifying information, where
available within the records. With this information, the FBI
painstakingly conducted research within an online, opensource database to verify whether or not the individuals
protected are still living. In all instances where the FBI had
withheld a name of an individual, there were insufficient
personal identifiers (SSN, DOB, etc.) to verify whether the
individuals were deceased ….
Moreover, the parties have not identified statutory or precedential case law that
requires Defendant to utilize the Social Security Death Index or any other specific
database for the purpose of ascertaining life status. Therefore, the Court finds that
Defendant made a reasonable effort to ascertain the life status of the individuals. See
Schrecker v. U. S. Dep’t. of Justice, 349 F.3d 657, 662 (2003). The Court also finds the
public interest in disclosure is far outweighed by the privacy interest of these individuals.
See id. at 666.
Finally, the Court modifies the conclusion of the R&R that Plaintiff is limited to
seeking attorney’s fees for the period from May 4, 2016 to January 25, 2017. It is
3
Case 1:16-cv-00347-RJA-JJM Document 34 Filed 09/19/22 Page 4 of 5
undisputed that Plaintiff has substantially prevailed, and the Defendant has cited no
authority for its unusual position, which was adopted in the R&R. Furthermore, as set
forth in the Seidel Declaration and reiterated during oral argument, Defendant released
additional information to Plaintiff in December 2019, after it conducted additional review
of the previously disclosed documents for purposes of researching the life status of
various individuals mentioned therein.
As such, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to the “lodestar” amount for the
duration of this case, in keeping with the caselaw. See, e.g., Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U. S.
Dep’t. of Justice, 774 F.Supp.2d 225 (D.D.C. 2011) (in the FOIA context, attorney’s fees
are based on the “lodestar” amount, which is calculated by multiplying the number of
hours expended by a reasonable hourly rate, and the burden of justifying any deviation
from awarding the “lodestar” amount to a plaintiff who has substantially prevailed rests
on the party proposing the deviation).
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 10) is
GRANTED; and it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 14) is
GRANTED with respect to attorney’s fees but otherwise DENIED; and it is
ORDERED that the case be remanded to Magistrate Judge McCarthy for the
imposition of a scheduling order for submissions on Plaintiff’s attorney’s fees, consistent
with the foregoing.
4
Case 1:16-cv-00347-RJA-JJM Document 34 Filed 09/19/22 Page 5 of 5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
__s/Richard J. Arcara________
HONORABLE RICHARD J. ARCARA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Dated: September 19, 2022
5
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?