Irving v. Department of the treasury/bureau of the Public Debt ( 2014 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DENNIS WILLIAM IRVING, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 13-1233 (BAH)
)
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY/ )
BUREAU OF THE PUBLIC DEBT, )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The Court previously entered a Memorandum and Order, ECF No. 15, granting in part
and denying in part the defendant Department of Treasury’s (DOT) motion for summary
judgment. See Aug. 7, 2014 Mem. Op. and Order, ECF No. 15. The defendant has now
supplemented the record in accordance with the Court’s order to: (1) provide details about its
search for records responsive to the plaintiff’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, and
(2) place the subject FOIA request in the record. Def.’s Supplemental Filing in Supp. of Mot. for
Summ. J., ECF No. 17. The defendant proffers the supplemental declaration of Denise K.
Nelson, who is “the Disclosure Officer at the Bureau of the Fiscal Service . . ., formerly known as
the Bureau of the Public Debt (BPD)[.]” Supp’l Decl. of Denise K. Nelson ¶ 1, ECF No. 17-1.
Upon consideration of the foregoing documents and the plaintiff’s supplemental response, the
Court will grant summary judgment to the defendant on the remaining search question and
enter judgment accordingly.
1
I. THE FOIA REQUEST
The Court determined from the parties’ pleadings that “the substance of the [then-
missing] request [was] not in dispute,” Mem. Op. at 2, but it could not assess the
reasonableness of the defendant’s search without knowing the scope of the request. See id. at
7. The actual FOIA request reveals that the plaintiff addressed it to Denise Nelson’s attention
and prefaced it with the following: “Now onto the information I need, at the Bureau of Public
Debt.” FOIA Req. at 1, ECF No. 17-2. The plaintiff then requested: (1) “[a]ll information
pertaining to the initial inception of my cusip [number], to include [names] . . . and account, or
any numbers related as well and initial amount in cusip;” (2) “My cusip [number] account
information, net assets, portfolio assets, and inception amounts;” (3) “any current information
or status of account;” and (4) “any info on my Bid Bonds Standard 24, Performance Bonds 25
Standard, Payment Bond . . . Standard all through comptroller . . . General Services
Administration.” Id. at 1-2. Supposedly to assist with the search, the plaintiff referred also to
“Fidelity Dividend Growth Fund Diversified.” Id. at 2.
In addition, the plaintiff posed the following questions with regard to his purported
account: “Where is the account now? Who is trading it? Who is my fund manager?”; and
posed the following questions with regard to the bonds: “What are the amounts on those
Bonds? Who put them out? Who has them?” Id. But see Mem. Op. at 5 (“The agency has no
obligation to create records or to answer questions[.]”) (citing cases).
II. DISCUSSION
In the initial ruling, the Court found that the defendant had adequately explained why it
could not search its filing systems by CUSIP number, as the plaintiff seemed to request, and for
2
records pertaining to the Fidelity Dividend Growth Fund Diversified, which the defendant did
not maintain. See Mem. Op. at 6; see also id. at 1, n.1 (explaining CUSIP). The Court agreed,
however, that the defendant had not adequately described the three BPD record systems that
were searched; consequently, it denied the defendant’s motion on this aspect of the claim
without prejudice to reconsideration upon supplementation of the record. See id. at 7-8.
The defendant’s declarant has now described the three searched record systems in
sufficient detail and explained why those systems are most likely to contain responsive
information “related to Mr. Irving and records of securities instruments owned by or associated
with [him].” Nelson Supp’l Decl. ¶ 6. Those systems “cover various records/filing systems that
contain [documents] relating to Treasury’s issuance, registration, and payments of Treasury
securities . . . .” Id. ¶ 7; see also id. ¶¶ 8-14 (providing details about each system). A search of
those systems by the plaintiff’s name and social security number, which is how such records are
retrieved, located no responsive records. Id. ¶ 15; see Mem. Op. at 2.
In his supplemental response, the plaintiff states that he wants “ ‘All’ systems within the
Treasury and [the Bureau of Public Debt]” searched so that he “will know a complete search has
been made[.]” Pl.’s Response to Def.’s Supplemental Filing in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. at 3,
ECF No. 18. Just because a plaintiff requests that “all” locations be searched does not require
an agency to perform such a search. To the contrary, the “FOIA does not provide individuals
with the right to demand ‘an all-encompassing fishing expedition’ of files in every office . . . ‘at
taxpayer expense.’ ” Bloeser v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 811 F. Supp. 2d 316, 321 (D.D.C. 2011)
(quoting Dale v. IRS, 238 F. Supp. 2d 99, 105 (D.D.C. 2002)). Moreover, the fact that the plaintiff
addressed his request to BPD’s disclosure officer and specifically identified BPD as the office
3
within Treasury from which records were sought further supports the reasonableness of the
defendant’s search. See id. (noting that “[t]o the extent that plaintiff can identify documents
which he believes exist in a particular office within the Department of Justice, such identifying
information should have been included as part of his original FOIA request in order to narrow
the scope of the search requested”).
III. CONCLUSION
The defendant has now shown that a reasonably adequate search was conducted for
responsive records, and the plaintiff has not come forward with any evidence to create a
genuine dispute about the search. Hence, the Court finds that the defendant is entitled to
summary judgment on this last remaining issue. A separate final Order accompanies this
Memorandum Opinion.
/s/ Beryl A. Howell
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATE: November 6, 2014
4