O'Neill v. United States Department of Justice, The

Filing 41

ORDER denying without prejudice 30 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 31 Motion to Compel; denying 31 Motion for Sanctions Signed by Honorable David C Norton on March 25, 2019.(kwhe, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
JOHN DAVID O’NEILL,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT )
OF JUSTICE, CRIMINAL DIVISION,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

No. 2:18-cv-01517-DCN
ORDER

This matter is before the court on defendant The United States Department of
Justice, Criminal Division’s (“the government”) motion for summary judgment, ECF No.
30, and plaintiff John David O’Neill’s (“O’Neill”) motion to compel and for sanctions,
ECF No. 31. Pursuant to the court’s ruling at the hearing on the motions, the court denies
without prejudice the government’s motion for summary judgment due to the incomplete
nature of the government’s search and review of potentially responsive documents.
According to the Declaration of Peter Sprung, the government has identified
approximately 14,720 records that are potentially responsive, and the government’s
search is ongoing. Sprung Decl. ¶ 16. In its motion for summary judgment, the
government only addresses 762 pages of responsive documents. Id. ¶ 19.
Once the government’s search and review are complete, the court orders the
government to produce a Vaughn index for any documents it seeks to withhold under a
Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) exemption. The court acknowledges that when
the government claims Exemption 7(A), as the government does here, it “may justify
nondisclosure in a generic fashion.” Spannaus v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 813 F.2d 1285,

1

1288 (4th Cir. 1987). However, if the government claims exemptions other than
Exemption 7(A), as it did in its motion for summary judgment, this generic approach is
insufficient. See Ayyad v. Internal Revenue Serv., 2018 WL 704849, at *10 (D. Md.
Feb. 2, 2018) (explaining that justifications for nondisclosure under Exemption 7(A) do
not require particularity, unlike justifications for nondisclosure under other FOIA
exemptions). As for O’Neill’s motion to compel and for sanctions, the court finds that
sanctions against the government are not appropriate at this time.
For the foregoing reasons the court DENIES without prejudice the government’s
motion for summary judgment and DENIES O’Neill’s motion to compel and for
sanctions.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

DAVID C. NORTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
March 25, 2019
Charleston, South Carolina

2