Muzumala v. FBI, No. 22-3789, 2023 WL 8850051 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 20, 2023) (Koeltl, J.)

Muzumala v. FBI, No. 22-3789, 2023 WL 8850051 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 20, 2023) (Koeltl, J.)

Re:  Requests for certain records concerning plaintiff

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

• Procedural Requirements, Responding to FOIA Requests:  The court holds that “the FBI timely responded to the plaintiff’s FOIA request.”  The court relates that “[t]he plaintiff asserts that the FBI ‘failed to respond to the [FOIA] Request within the statutorily mandated timeframe . . . .”  The court finds that “the FBI responded within the time allowed by the statute.”  “The FBI responded to the plaintiff’s FOIA request . . . six business days after the plaintiff made the request on February 1, 2022 . . . .”  “The FBI sent its response to the address that the plaintiff provided at the time of his request . . . .”  “The plaintiff argues that the FBI nevertheless failed to respond timely to the FOIA request because the FBI did not send its response to the plaintiff by email.”  “In asserting this argument, the plaintiff relies on the subsection of the FOIA that provides:  ‘In making any record available to a person under this paragraph, an agency shall provide the record in any form or format requested by the person if the record is readily reproducible by the agency in that form or format.’”  “However, as the Government correctly argues, that subsection pertains to how the agency produces records, not to how the agency responds to FOIA requests in the first instance.”  “Nowhere does the statute specify that the agency must provide a response in the same manner that the FOIA request was made, as the plaintiff contends.”

• Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search:  The court holds that “the FBI conducted an adequate search and properly explained that there were no records responsive to the plaintiff’s FOIA request.”  “In this case, [defendant’s] Declaration demonstrates that the FBI fulfilled its FOIA obligations because it ‘searched the record systems, or caused the records systems to be searched, where it believed responsive records were likely to be located.’”  “[Defendant’s] Declaration provided a detailed description of the FBI’s Central Record System as well as Sentinel, the FBI’s case management system.”  “Additionally, [defendant’s] Declaration described why ‘a search of the CRS automated indices, available within Sentinel via the Sentinel and ACS search functions in Sentinel represented the most reasonable means for the FBI to locate records potentially responsive to [the plaintiff’s] [FOIA and Privacy Act] request.’”  “Finally, [defendant’s] Declaration detailed the search for records potentially responsive to the plaintiff’s request and reported that the search returned no results.”  “The plaintiff argues that the FBI failed to conduct an adequate search because [defendant’s] original declaration . . . indicates that the FBI conducted the search under the wrong name . . . .”  “However, the FBI submitted a revised affidavit that declared the search was conducted under the correct name and the original affidavit simply contained a mistaken description of the name that was used.”  “Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that the revised affidavit is false and that the search was conducted under the wrong name.”  “Indeed, the exhibits to the original declaration contain the correct name . . . and support the conclusion that the incorrect name contained in the original declaration was a typographical error.”  “Courts have accepted corrections such as the one in this case and found that an agency ‘confess[ing] to a mistake in its initial declaration and then correct[ing] that mistake does not render the search inadequate’ or amount to a showing of bad faith.”
  
  Similarly, the court finds that “ICE’s searches in this case were adequate.”  “In this case, [defendant’s] Declaration demonstrates that ICE fulfilled its obligations under the FOIA.”  “[Defendant’s] Declaration specifies the specific program offices and search terms that were involved in this search.”  “The fact that an agency conducts an additional search does not support a finding of bad faith or undermine adequacy, even if the search reveals previously omitted documents.”
   
• Procedural Requirements:  The court holds that “[t]o the extent that the plaintiff argues that ICE improperly withheld information under the FOIA’s exemptions, that argument also fails.”  “ICE properly withheld information in the plaintiff’s FOIA request under Exemptions 3, 7(E), 6, and 7(C).”  “The plaintiff does not dispute that ICE’s redactions pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 3 and 7(E) were proper.”  “Rather, the plaintiff claims that the difference in the amount of redactions between pages 29 and 32 proves that non-exempt information was improperly withheld.”  “However, the alleged non-exempt information at issue is not actionable.”  “Assuming the plaintiff is correct that pages 29 and 32 contain identical information, what was erroneously redacted on page 32 are column headers that read ‘Organization,’ ‘Full Name,’ and ‘Telephone.’”  “The plaintiff was not deprived of the non-exempt information.”  “The plaintiff knows what the column headers are because that information is not redacted on page 29.”  “The plaintiff also argues that ICE improperly applied Exemption 6 to pages 29 and 34 because ICE applied both Exemptions 6 and 7(C) to pages 29 and 34 but only Exemption 7(C) to the same redacted information on page 32.”  “The Government appears to concede that ICE made typographical errors, failing to include Exemption 6 on page 32 and citing Exemption 7(E) rather than 7(C) on page 32.”  “However, this does not change the fact that the information was properly withheld under Exemption 7(C), which the plaintiff does not contest.”
   
• Litigation Considerations, Vaughn Index/Declaration:  The court relates that “plaintiff argues that ICE’s Vaughn index was inadequate.”  “Courts in this Circuit have found Vaughn indices to be adequate where they ‘identif[y] each document where information was redacted, the type of document it is, the claimed exemption and the basis for redacting the information pursuant to that exemption.’”  “All of that information is included in the Vaughn index that ICE submitted in this case.”  “Accordingly, ICE’s Vaughn index was adequate.”

• Attorney Fees:  The court holds that “plaintiff is not entitled to attorney’s fees.”   The court explains that “the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has held that pro se litigants are not eligible for prevailing party attorney’s fees under the FOIA.”  “Thus, the plaintiff in this case, who appears pro se, is not eligible for attorney’s fees.”  “Moreover, the plaintiff in this case has not ‘substantially prevailed.’”  “Rather, the plaintiff has failed to produce any non-trivial benefit to himself or to the public.”  “The plaintiff’s efforts have resulted in no additional documents from the FBI and just one additional document (and removal of some redactions on another document) from ICE.”  “Most of the plaintiff’s claims have been dismissed without the production of any additional information.”