Franklin v. Wormuth, No. 23-02129, 2024 WL 3377836 (D. Md. July 11, 2024) (Xinis, J.)

Franklin v. Wormuth, No. 23-02129, 2024 WL 3377836 (D. Md. July 11, 2024) (Xinis, J.)

Re:  Requests for records concerning Record of Inquiry (“ROI”) Report arising from plaintiff’s Equal Employment Opportunity (“EEO”) Complaints

Disposition:  Granting in part and denying in part defendant’s motion for summary judgment

• Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search:  The court holds that, “[a]s to [plaintiff’s] Requests Nos. 1, 3 and 4, the record demonstrates the adequacy of the Army’s search for pertinent records.”  “All affiants described in detail where they searched for records and asserted that they used reasonable search terms designed to produce a comprehensive response when searching electronic records.”  “And each attested that no records could be found.”  “[Plaintiff], by contrast, has produced no evidence that the searches were insufficient or conducted in bad faith.”  “Request No. 2, however, compels a different result.”  “The record as to the search process is remarkably thin.”  “[T]he singular affiant on this request[] does not specify who conducted the search or what parameters were used.”  “Nor does [the affiant] state whether searches included paper files or electronic records; or what search terms were employed.”  “And no other affidavits fill in the factual gaps so the Court cannot evaluate the adequacy of the Army’s search.”  “Summary judgment as to Request No. 2 is therefore denied.”

• Exemption 6:  The court relates that, “as to Request No. 2, [plaintiff] argues that the Army violated FOIA in redacting names and personal identifying information from the Police Report.”  The court finds that “[plaintiff’s] contention is without merit because such redactions were necessary to protect the identities of law enforcement and civilian witnesses.”  “Redaction of names and personal identifying information protect the substantial privacy interests of those involved in particular investigations.”  The court also finds that “[Plaintiff] . . . gives no countervailing reasons why disclosure would be in the public interest.”