Werth v. U.S. Department of Justice ( 2020 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
________________________________
)
WAYNE R. WERTH, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 18-1171 (EGS)
)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al., )
)
)
Defendants. )
________________________________ )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In June 2018, plaintiff, a federal prisoner appearing pro se, filed this action to compel the
United States Marshals Service to respond to his Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request
for documentation concerning materials he allegedly lost during an airlift. In light of the
complaint, the Marshals Service conducted a search, released one of eighty-nine potentially
responsive records, and moved for summary judgment. Initially, the Court denied summary
judgment because the record raised questions about the declarant’s competency to testify about
the matters at hand. See ECF No. 21, Mem. Op. and Order at 4-5 (finding “nothing” to suggest
that Defendant’s declarant “coordinated the search, conducted the search, or reviewed the 89
potentially responsive pages and determined one to be responsive”). Pending before the Court is
Defendants’ Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 24. Plaintiff “waives his right
1
to respond” to the motion. Resp. to Order, ECF No. 26. 1 For the following reasons, defendants’
motion will be granted.
The background and legal framework are set forth in the court’s initial ruling and bear no
repeating here. That said, the Court must “determine for itself whether the record and any
undisputed material facts justify granting summary judgment.” Winston & Strawn, LLP v.
McLean, 843 F.3d 503, 505 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).
Defendants have supplemented the record with the Declaration of Associate General
Counsel Charlotte Luckstone (“Luckstone Decl.”), who serves as the FOIA/PA Officer for the
Marshals Service. Luckstone Decl. ¶ 1, ECF No. 22-1. By his waiver, plaintiff admits that the
Service (1) conducted a reasonably adequate search for responsive records and (2) released “the
sole page relating to Plaintiff’s property at the airlift—a Field Report pertaining to a property
inquiry.” Stmt. of Undisputed Material Facts (“SOMF”) ¶ 21; see Luckstone Decl. ¶¶ 8-17
(describing search and retrieval methods). In addition, the Service properly invoked FOIA
Exemption 6 to redact the identifying information of two law enforcement personnel. 2 SOMF ¶
23; see 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6) (exempting “personnel” files from disclosure); Nat'l Ass'n of
Retired Fed. Employees v. Horner, 879 F.2d 873, 875 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (because FOIA
disclosures are to “the whole world,” the “privacy interest of an individual in avoiding the
unlimited disclosure of his or her name and address is significant”). Therefore, the Court may
1
Plaintiff’s response is to the order duly advising him about the consequences of failing to respond
to defendant’s dispositive motion. See Order, ECF No. 25.
2
The Court need not address defendants’ withholding of the same identifying information
under FOIA Exemption (7)(C) but finds it properly justified. See Defs.’ Mem. at P. & A at 7-11,
ECF No. 24-2.
2
appropriately grant summary judgment to the defendants. A separate order accompanies this
Memorandum Opinion.
SIGNED: EMMET G. SULLIVAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Date: December 3, 2020
3