Doyle v. DHS, No. 17-2542, 2018 WL 3597513 (S.D.N.Y. July 26, 2018) (Failla, J.)

Doyle v. DHS, No. 17-2542, 2018 WL 3597513 (S.D.N.Y. July 26, 2018) (Failla, J.)

Re:  Request for records of visitors of President Trump

Disposition:  Granting in part and denying in part defendants' motion for summary judgment; granting defendants' motion to dismiss in full

• Procedural Requirements, Agency Records:  "[T]he Court holds that WAVES and ACR records are not agency records subject to disclosure under FOIA."  The court explains, "the White House's intention to retain control over WAVES and ACR records is manifest in the relevant memoranda."  Additionally, "the Secret Service 'cannot make changes to the . . . systems, or make purchases related to the systems, without the consent of the [White House,]'" and the Secret Service's access to the records in the systems is limited.  However, the court distinguishes other components of the Executive Office of the President (EOP).  "Although the Secret Service does not exert sufficient control over WAVES and ACR records of visits to the President or EOP components that advise and assist the President, the reasoning underlying that conclusion does not extend to WAVES and ACR records of visits to members of EOP components that are themselves subject to FOIA."  With respect to other records that the Secret Service possessed, the court determines that "[t]he considerations that render FOIA inapplicable to WAVES and ACR records apply with equal force to the Presidential Schedule Documents." 
   
• Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search:  The court holds that the Secret Service's search detailed in an affidavit was adequate.  The court explains, "[b]ecause the Secret Service had not established a formal recordkeeping system at the time of Plaintiffs' FOIA Request, the search began by identifying offices that could potentially possess responsive documents."  Overall, "fthe Court finds the Secret Service's selection of offices along with the CIO email database and the search terms employed to be reasonable."     
   
• Procedural Considerations, Responsiveness:  The court rejects the defendant's argument that they were not required to disclose a small number of operational records because it is "'duplicative of the information contained in [another] email released to Plaintiffs.'"  The court holds that "although an agency need not 'produce multiple copies of the exact same document,'" records cannot be withheld "simply because they are publicly available by other means" or "contain similar statements."