Levitt v. IRS, No. 24-00284, 2025 WL 1745758 (N.A. Ala. June 24, 2025) (Cornelius, Mag. J.)

Levitt v. IRS, No. 24-00284, 2025 WL 1745758 (N.A. Ala. June 24, 2025) (Cornelius, Mag. J.)

Re:  Request for audit records concerning requester

Disposition:  Granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment

• Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search:  The court relates that, “[h]ere, the declaration provided by the agency representative satisfies the agency’s initial burden to show beyond a material doubt that it conducted a search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents and made appropriate redactions.”  “Therefore, the burden shifts to [plaintiff] to rebut those showings.” “[Plaintiff] first challenges the adequacy of the agency’s search insofar as he disagrees with the agency’s interpretation of Item Eleven, which sought ‘[a]ny and all correspondence related to the [Final Partnership Adjustment (“FPA”)] sent to both the Taxpayer and PR.’”  “[T]he agency interpreted the phrase ‘sent to both the Taxpayer and [Partnership Representative for the Taxpayer (“PR”)]’ as describing the correspondence and so read the request as seeking correspondence sent to both the Taxpayer and PR that was related to the FPA, while [plaintiff] takes the position the phrase ‘sent to both the Taxpayer and PR’ describes the FPA and so reads the request as seeking all correspondence in the agency’s possession related to the FPA, regardless of who sent or received it.”  “[Plaintiff] next contends that, even if Item Eleven cannot be read as seeking all correspondence in the agency’s possession related to the FPA and not just correspondence sent to the Taxpayer and PR, Item Twelve[, which requests “‘[a]ny and all documents that tend to prove or disprove that the Taxpayer or PR received the FPA,’”] can and should.”  “This means, in [plaintiff’s] view, ‘there absolutely should be correspondence related to the FPA in the FOIA production’ and its ‘striking’ absence demonstrates the search at issue was not adequate or conducted in good faith.”  “[Plaintiff] offers the arguments not only as grounds for denying the agency’s summary judgment motion but also in support of a request to conduct discovery regarding the agency’s search.”
  
  “The court disagrees with both arguments and will not grant any of the relief [plaintiff] requests.”  “First, the more natural reading of Item Eleven is one in which the phrase ‘sent to both the Taxpayer and PR’ describes the correspondence, not the FPA, so that the request seeks correspondence sent to both the Taxpayer and PR that was related to the FPA.”  “Second, even if all agency correspondence related to the FPA would be responsive to Item Twelve, the fact that no such correspondence was included in the FOIA production does not rebut the showing made by the agency that its search was adequate or the presumption the agency conducted the search in good faith.” “Absent any genuine issue of fact regarding the adequacy of the search conducted by the agency or the presumption the agency conducted the search in good faith, there is no basis for entertaining [plaintiff’s] request for discovery and the agency is entitled to summary judgment.”  “If [plaintiff] wishes to obtain all agency correspondence related to the FPA, his remedy is to submit a new FOIA request.”