Louise Trauma Ctr. LLC v. DHS, No. 21-2371, 2024 WL 687948 (D.D.C. Feb. 20, 2024) (Bates, J.)

Louise Trauma Ctr. LLC v. DHS, No. 21-2371, 2024 WL 687948 (D.D.C. Feb. 20, 2024) (Bates, J.)

Re:  Request for “all records concerning the documentation center maintained by the Director of International Affairs”

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

• Procedural Requirements, Proper FOIA Requests:  The court relates that “DHS determined that [plaintiff] was quoting outdated regulations, and that the ‘documentation center’ described in the cited regulation now refers to the Refugee, Asylum, and International Operations (“RAIO”) Research Unit, and the ‘Director of International Affairs’ now refers to the Associate Director of the RAIO Directorate.”  The court holds that “[plaintiff’s] request for ‘all records concerning’ the RAIO Research Unit is too amorphous to constitute a valid FOIA request.”  “The RAIO Research Unit is a division of DHS dedicated to researching ‘up-to-date, credible, and objective [country of origin information] on human rights and country conditions to assist in the timely adjudication of [refugee, asylum, and international operations] applicants’ claims.’”  “Researchers within the unit draft memos and briefing reports on human rights and migration issues, respond to queries from adjudicators and DHS staff, and conduct related trainings, among other responsibilities.”  “A request for records ‘concerning’ the RAIO Research Unit includes all documents having some relation to the activities of an entire division of the Department.”  “Here, it might be argued that the second line of [plaintiff’s] request sufficiently constrains the scope of the first.”  “The second sentence, ‘Please give us a table of contents, rules, procedures, policy statements, annual reports, etc.,’ could be construed as a limiting descriptor, delimiting the request to records similar to those enumerated in this sentence.”  “Indeed, DHS claims this interpretation is the only ‘reasonable’ construction of [plaintiff’s] request.”  “However, [plaintiff] has repeatedly and vehemently denied that its request is limited in any way.”  “To the extent that reading was available, [plaintiff] has disclaimed it.”  “And under the broad construction advocated by [plaintiff], the request fails to give the agency ‘adequate guidance in locating responsive documents.’”  “It is too ‘[b]road, sweeping . . . [and] lacking specificity’ to require a response.”
  
  The court relates that “[plaintiff] suggests that summary judgment should nonetheless be denied because DHS failed to inform it ‘of any perceived deficiencies in’ [the request].”  The court finds that “while DHS’s regulations recommend that agencies contact requestors about narrowing their requests, the regulations do not require this course of action.”  “Further, courts in this district are not even in accord as to the significance of an agency’s failure to notify a requester of an excessively vague request.”  “Some courts have treated violation of a notice requirement as ‘merely a factor in the summary-judgment analysis’ while others have treated it as ‘nearly dispositive.’”  “Most significantly here, the record demonstrates that the parties went back and forth about the scope of [plaintiff’s] request for at least eight months between the filing of the lawsuit and summary judgment.”  “While DHS may not have specifically criticized the request for being not ‘reasonably described,’ the parties’ communications suggest that competing interpretations of the request’s scope was the central issue.”  “Despite this persistent dispute, the Court is not aware of any effort by [plaintiff] to assist the agency in narrowing or defining the boundaries of its request.”  “[T]he Court will not deny summary judgment when plaintiff has failed to suggest it seeks anything less than ‘all records concerning’ an entire division of DHS.”