Sperling v. Office of Information Policy ( 2014 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
)
HERBERT SPERLING, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil No. 12-cv-0605 (KBJ)
)
OFFICE OF INFORMATION POLICY )
et al., )
)
Defendants. )
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff brought this action pro se under the Freedom of Information Act
(“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, challenging the response of the Department of Justice
(“DOJ”) and the Office of Information Policy (“OIP”) to his request for copies of any
disciplinary complaints that the Office of Professional Responsibility (“OPR”) has
pertaining to four individuals, two of whom are deceased. On February 15, 2013, this
Court (Jackson, A.) entered an order granting summary judgment in Defendants’ favor
with respect to (1) the “Glomar response” that Defendants issued regarding the two
individuals who are still alive, and (2) the adequacy of the search for records pertaining
to one deceased individual, the Hon. Milton Pollack. (See Feb. 15, 2013 Mem. Op. and
Order, ECF No. 20, at 4-10.) The Court denied summary judgment with respect to
Defendants’ search for records pertaining to former (and now deceased) Assistant
United States Attorney (“AUSA”) Paul Curran. The Court found that there was a
material factual dispute regarding the search for records pertaining to AUSA Curran
because Defendants limited their search to databases that OPR had created in 2005, and
Plaintiff sought records dating back to 1973. (See id. at 10-11.) The Court instructed
Defendants to “file a supplemental declaration that addresses the concerns raised about
[their] search and, if appropriate, renew [their] motion for summary judgment.” (Id. at
11.)
In response to that order, Defendants conducted additional searches and filed
both a supplemental declaration and a renewed motion for summary judgment. (See
generally Defs.’ Renewed Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 21.) In his response to the
renewed motion, Plaintiff concedes the issue of the adequacy of Defendants’ searches
for records relating to AUSA Curran. (Resp. to Defs.’ Renewed Mot. for Summ. J.,
ECF No. 23 at 2.) Specifically, Plaintiff states that that he “is unable to discern any
further facially short-commings [sic] with the databases that are claimed to have been
searched[]” and, because “there are no responsive Records and the Defendants are not
presently claiming any specific exemptions[,] there is no further dispute at this time.”
(Id. at 2.)
Because there is no dispute regarding the sole factual issue remaining in this
case—the adequacy of Defendants’ search for records pertaining to AUSA Curran—the
Court will grant Defendants’ renewed motion for summary judgment, and order that
judgment be issued in Defendants’ favor as a matter of law.
A separate, final order accompanies the Memorandum Opinion.
DATE: January 24, 2014 Ketanji Brown Jackson
KETANJI BROWN JACKSON
United States District Judge
2