Akel v. DOJ, No. 20-3240, 2024 WL 939974 (D.D.C. Mar. 4, 2024) (Moss, J.)

Akel v. DOJ, No. 20-3240, 2024 WL 939974 (D.D.C. Mar. 4, 2024) (Moss, J.)

Re:  Request for “‘[a]ll ex parte communications between the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Florida and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida’” concerning plaintiff

Disposition:  Granting defendant’s third motion for summary judgment; denying plaintiff’s third cross-motion for summary judgment

• Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search; Procedural Requirements, Searching for Responsive Records:  “The Court will . . . grant summary judgment to the Department on this issue.”  “[Plaintiff] argues that the search was still inadequate because, even if the Department searched for his name and case number in the segregated email accounts, [defendant] did not search the archival database for emails with those terms for the four assistant United States attorneys other than [one former AUSA].”  “[Plaintiff] is mistaken.”  “Although a search of the archival database may be necessary to locate the records of former employees, like [the former AUSA], the same is not true of the four current employees, who maintain active email databases that contain all emails related to [plaintiff’s] prosecution and appeal.”  “For these employees . . . , a search of their segregated email databases ‘can be reasonably expected to produce the information requested.’”