Duggan v. Dept. of Justice ( 2002 )

Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter
Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 02-1577
GERALD BRYAN DUGGAN,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Defendant, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Reginald C. Lindsay, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Selya, Lynch and Howard,
Circuit Judges.
Gerald Bryan Duggan on brief pro se.
Michael J. Sullivan, United States Attorney, and Gina Y.
Walcott-Torres, Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellee.
December 31, 2002
Per Curiam. After carefully considering the briefs
and record on appeal, we affirm substantially for the reasons
stated by the district court.
The appellant’s main argument on appeal is that the
government failed to show that it conducted a reasonable search
in response to his February 28, 2000 request. 5 U.S.C. §
552(a). He argues that the existence of field offices remained
in dispute because the Joachim declaration merely paraphrased
a supervisor’s statement disclaiming field offices. However,
the government is not always required to produce affidavits on
personal knowledge, but may rely upon the statements of
responsible officials. Maynard v. Central Intelligence Agency,
986 F.2d 547, 560 (1st Cir. 1993).
The appellant’s attempts to show bad faith are also
unavailing. The government’s showing that the search was
reasonable was not undermined by the appellant’s allegations of
delay or conflation of February and March requests. Neither
allegation, even if true, would tend to show that the search
was not reasonably calculated to discover the requested
records. See Church of Scientology Int'l v. United States
Dep't of Justice, 30 F.3d 224 (1st Cir. 1994).
Finally, as to the discovery order, the appellant
fails to make a clear showing of manifest injustice. His
-2-
assignment of error therefore fails. See Maynard, 986 F.2d at
567.
Affirmed. Loc. R. 27(c).
-3-