Delgado v. DOJ, No. 23-0089, 2024 WL 1071035 (D.D.C. Mar. 11, 2024) (Mehta, J.)

Delgado v. DOJ, No. 23-0089, 2024 WL 1071035 (D.D.C. Mar. 11, 2024) (Mehta, J.)

Re:  Request for documentation showing that ATF made employer and employee pension contributions on plaintiff’s behalf as required by settlement agreement

Disposition:  Denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment; granting defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment

• Litigation Considerations, Vaughn Index/Declaration:  “The court first addresses Plaintiff’s concerns that the agencies have not acted in good faith to identify responsive records.”  “In an untimely filed supplement, Plaintiff alleges instances of alleged misconduct by the DOJ, FBI, and ATF towards him that, he says, ‘demonstrate’ these agencies ‘have all allowed for employee misconduct to negatively impact Plaintiff’s career and personal life without justification.’”  “But these alleged actions have nothing to do with [defendants’] search for responsive records and DOJ/ATF’s review of them.”  “Plaintiff thus has not cast doubt on the good faith presumption afforded to the declarations.”

• Litigation Considerations, Jurisdiction:  “The court first enters judgment in favor of DOJ and ATF because Plaintiff never submitted a FOIA request to either of them.”  “DOJ/ATF’s declarant . . . explains that ‘ATF has never been served with a FOIA request from Plaintiff concerning his [Federal Employee Retirement System (“FERS”)] contributions, only a referral from USDA/[ National Finance Center (“NFC”)] for the review of 191 pages of responsive documents.’”  “Those pages consisted of ‘earning and payroll records from December 22, 2002, to December 25, 2020.’”  “ATF reviewed those records and ultimately released them in full to Plaintiff.”  “In response, Plaintiff offers no evidence to support that he ever submitted a FOIA request to DOJ/ATF.”  “The only FOIA requests in the record are directed to a different agency, USDA/NFC.”  “Accordingly, summary judgment is granted in favor of DOJ and ATF.”

• Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search:  The court relates that “[t]he sole contested issue in this case is the adequacy of USDA/NFC's search.”  “The court . . . holds that Defendants’ search was adequate under FOIA.”  “Plaintiff’s only complaint about the search is that it did not produce the specific records he requested . . . .”  “But the adequacy of a search is judged not by its results, but the reasonableness of the search itself.”  “USDA/NFC’s declarant . . . provided a detailed explanation of where the agency searched and how it conducted the search, and it averred that no other system of records was likely to have the requested records.”  “He also offered an explanation, though not required, of why the requested records were not located:  the agency ‘does not have access to ATF’s contributions to Plaintiff’s retirement.’”