Morris v. United States Securities and Exchange Commission ( 2019 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
_________________________________________
)
ALISHIA N. MORRIS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 19-cv-887 (APM)
)
UNITED STATES SECURITIES )
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION )
)
Defendants. )
_________________________________________ )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Alishia Morris brings this action under the Freedom of Information Act to compel
the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) to produce records that appear to relate to child
custody proceedings in the Texas state courts. See Compl., ECF No. 1, at 5–6 (seeking Texas state
court records); Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summ. J., ECF No. 10 [hereinafter
Def.’s Mot.], Decl. of Jason Luetkenhaus, ECF No. 10-2 [hereinafter Luetkenhaus Decl.], Ex. 1.
The SEC did not conduct a search, as it knew that the agency would not possess the type of records
sought — and it so advised Plaintiff. See Luetkenhaus Decl. ¶¶ 6–7. The agency now moves to
dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment. See generally Def.’s Mot.
The SEC’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. The agency has sufficiently
explained through a sworn affidavit why it would not possess responsive records. See Military
Audit Project v. Casey, 656 F.2d 724, 738 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (“[I]t is now well established that
summary judgment on the basis of such agency affidavits is warranted if the affidavits describe
the documents and the justifications for nondisclosure with reasonably specific detail . . . and are
not controverted by either contrary evidence in the record nor by evidence of agency bad faith.”).
Plaintiff offers no reason, and the court cannot think of one, to doubt the agency’s representation.
See id. After all, the SEC is a federal agency whose mission is to protect investors nationwide and
to regulate the securities markets. See Luetkehaus Decl., Ex. 2, at 121. Thus, there is no reason to
think that it would possess records concerning a state child custody matter.
Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 10, is granted. A final
appealable order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
Dated: September 20, 2019 Amit P. Mehta
United States District Judge
1
The court uses ECF pagination.
2