Scarlett v. OIG, No. 21-819, 2024 WL 960998 (D.D.C. Mar. 6, 2024) (Moss, J.)

Scarlett v. OIG, No. 21-819, 2024 WL 960998 (D.D.C. Mar. 6, 2024) (Moss, J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning complaint against plaintiff

Disposition:  Granting defendant’s renewed motion for summary judgment

• Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search:  “The Court . . . concludes that the agency has demonstrated that it made a ‘good faith effort to conduct a search for the requested records, using methods which can be reasonably expected to produce the information requested.’”  “The Court is now persuaded that the OIG’s search for responsive records in this case was adequate.”  “In contrast to [its] first declaration, [defendant] now ‘explain[s] in reasonable detail the scope and method of the search.’”  “In contrast to the OIG’s first submission, the second . . . declaration does not simply ‘nam[e] databases and stat[e] that they were “searched.”’”  “Instead, [plaintiff] names specific search terms used and places searched . . . .”  “The Court concludes that the OIG has carried its burden of showing that it conducted the search in this case using ‘methods which can be reasonably expected to produce the information requested,’ . . . and, as such, that the OIG conducted an adequate search for responsive records.”  The court relates that “[plaintiff’s] contention appears to be that, because the released document (at least on her telling) cannot support the law enforcement related representations that the OIG made to this Court [in the non-FOIA proceeding], there must have been some other record, a second complaint, responsive to her request that the OIG’s search failed to locate.”  The court finds that “[plaintiff’s] arguments are (at best) ‘purely speculative’ and fail to overcome the presumption of good faith to which the OIG is entitled.”