Rozo v. U.S. Department of Justice , 991 F. Supp. 2d 206 ( 2013 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
HECTOR ROZO, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 13-0427 (BAH)
)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this action brought pro se under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. §
552, the defendants conducted a search for records responsive to the plaintiff’s FOIA request
but located no records. Asserting that their search was adequate, the defendants have moved
for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J., ECF
No. 11. The plaintiff has not complied with the Order of September 3, 2013, ECF No. 13,
advising him about responding to the defendants’ motion and giving him until October 10,
2013, to oppose the motion. Having considered the defendants’ unrefuted evidence of an
adequate search, the Court will grant the defendants’ motion and enter judgment accordingly.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
Pursuant to Rule 56, summary judgment shall be granted “if the movant shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247
(1986); Estate of Parsons v. Palestinian Auth., 651 F.3d 118, 123 (D.C. Cir. 2011); Tao v. Freeh,
27 F.3d 635, 638 (D.C. Cir. 1994). To determine which facts are material, the Court looks to the
1
substantive law on which each claim rests. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. Summary judgment is
properly granted against a party who “fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the
existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the
burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). “The court should
state on the record the reasons for granting . . . the [summary judgment] motion.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 56(a).
“ ‘FOIA cases typically and appropriately are decided on motions for summary
judgment.’ ” Georgacarakos v. FBI, 908 F. Supp. 2d 176, 180 (D.D.C. 2012) (quoting Defenders
of Wildlife v. U.S. Border Patrol, 623 F. Supp. 2d 83, 87 (D.D.C. 2009)). With respect to the
adequacy of an agency's search efforts, summary judgment may be based solely on information
supplied in the agency's supporting declarations that “explain in reasonable detail the scope
and method of the agency’s search,” id. at 181 (citing Perry v. Block, 684 F.2d 121, 126 (D.C. Cir.
1982)), and “demonstrate beyond material doubt that [the] search was reasonably calculated
to uncover all relevant documents.” Students Against Genocide v. Dep't of State, 257 F.3d 828,
838 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (quoting Nation Magazine v. U.S. Customs Service, 71 F.3d 885, 890 (D.C.
Cir. 1995)). “The adequacy of a search ‘is judged by a standard of reasonableness and depends,
not surprisingly, upon the facts of each case.’ ” Mobley v. CIA, 924 F. Supp. 2d 24, 26 (D.D.C.
2013) (quoting Weisberg v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 745 F.2d 1476, 1485 (D.C. Cir. 1984)). Since an
adequate search is established by the “appropriateness” of the search methods employed, not
the “fruits of the search,” the sole fact that documents were not located cannot support a
finding of an inadequate search. Scaff-Martinez v. Drug Enforcement Admin., 770 F. Supp. 2d
2
17, 21-22 (D.D.C. 2011) (quoting Iturralde v. Comptroller of Currency, 315 F.3d 311, 315 (D.C.
Cir. 2003); Boyd v. Criminal Div. of U.S. Dept. of Justice, 475 F.3d 381, 390-91 (D.C. Cir. 2007)).
II. DISCUSSION
The September 3, 2013 Order warned the plaintiff that his failure to refute the
defendants’ factual assertions in accordance with Rule 56(c)(e) -- the text of which was set out
in the order -- might result in entry of judgment for the defendants. The plaintiff has
completely failed to come forward with any evidence to rebut the defendants’ declaration
establishing their reasonably adequate search for responsive records. See Decl. of Michelle
Smith, ECF No. 11-2, ¶¶ 5-13 (recounting her searches conducted in 2011, 2012, and 2013).
Hence, the Court finds on the undisputed factual record that the defendants are entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. See Grimes v. District of Columbia, 923 F. Supp. 2d 196, 198
(D.D.C. 2013) (“The 2010 Amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 . . . and the
accompanying Advisory Committee Notes do not prohibit this Court from granting summary
judgment where, as here, the nonmovant fails to demonstrate a genuine dispute as to any
material fact.”). A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
/s/ Beryl A. Howell
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATE: November 12, 2013
3