Professional Documents
Culture Documents
MEMORANDUM OPINION
the responses and replies thereto, the applicable law, the entire
record, and for the reasons set forth below, the defendant’s
I. BACKGROUND
1
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is styled as a
“Cross-Motion” even though the FDIC has not filed a motion for
summary judgment. For ease of reference the Court will refer to
plaintiff’s motion as a motion for summary judgment.
Case 1:10-cv-00420-EGS Document 17 Filed 12/23/10 Page 2 of 19
2
Case 1:10-cv-00420-EGS Document 17 Filed 12/23/10 Page 3 of 19
inter alia, that defendant “search for and produce any and all
p. 5.
(“Pl.’s Mem.). Both motions are now ripe for decision by the
Court.
3
Case 1:10-cv-00420-EGS Document 17 Filed 12/23/10 Page 4 of 19
the movant must show, inter alia, that “interim relief and events
Perry v. Block, 684 F.2d 121, 125 (D.C. Cir. 1982). However, as
4
Case 1:10-cv-00420-EGS Document 17 Filed 12/23/10 Page 5 of 19
B. Summary Judgment
show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). The non-
denials.” Burke v. Gould, 286 F.3d 513, 517 (D.C. Cir. 2002)
the Court concludes that “the nonmoving party has failed to make
respect to which [it] has the burden of proof,” then the moving
5
Case 1:10-cv-00420-EGS Document 17 Filed 12/23/10 Page 6 of 19
323.
the FOIA. See Dep’t of Justice v. Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. 136,
U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 976 F.2d 1429, 1433 (D.C. Cir. 1992).
III. ANALYSIS
each in turn.
A. Mootness
6
Case 1:10-cv-00420-EGS Document 17 Filed 12/23/10 Page 7 of 19
not moot because the documents produced are heavily redacted, and
the FDIC has not met its statutory burden to “justify its claims
having the Court determine (1) whether the search for records was
required by FOIA, and (2) whether the agency has released all
2
Defendant’s argument to the contrary is baseless.
Defendant argues that plaintiff’s “sole claim in this action is
that . . . [the agency has] fail[ed] to respond timely to his
three FOIA requests.” Def.’s Mem. in Support of Motion to
Dismiss at 4 (emphasis in original). Now that the FDIC has
7
Case 1:10-cv-00420-EGS Document 17 Filed 12/23/10 Page 8 of 19
search and that it has not met its burden to justify non-
arguments in turn.
Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749, 755
of its search for requested records, “the agency may meet its
forth the search terms and the type of search performed, and
8
Case 1:10-cv-00420-EGS Document 17 Filed 12/23/10 Page 9 of 19
U.S. Coast Guard, 180 F.3d 321, 326 (D.C. Cir. 1999)). Although
search for the requested records, [it must] describe what records
personnel who conducted the searches. Nor does the FDIC provide
9
Case 1:10-cv-00420-EGS Document 17 Filed 12/23/10 Page 10 of 19
correctly points out, Jackson does not explain the search methods
2009); see also Morley v. CIA, 508 F.3d 1108, 1122 (D.C. Cir.
the Court must GRANT the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment
regarding the adequacy of the search. The FDIC must either (1)
conduct a new search (or searches) for the records sought by the
from which the Court can find that the declarants have personal
10
Case 1:10-cv-00420-EGS Document 17 Filed 12/23/10 Page 11 of 19
Comm’n, 975 F.2d 871, 872 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (citations and
Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 674 F.2d 921, 928-29 (D.C. Cir. 1982)
11
Case 1:10-cv-00420-EGS Document 17 Filed 12/23/10 Page 12 of 19
F.3d 508, 515 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (FOIA); Common Cause, 674 F.2d at
any withholding. See Bigwood v. U.S. Agency for Int’l Dev., 484
12
Case 1:10-cv-00420-EGS Document 17 Filed 12/23/10 Page 13 of 19
a. Exemption 4
question, the Court must then apply the appropriate test for
13
Case 1:10-cv-00420-EGS Document 17 Filed 12/23/10 Page 14 of 19
submission does not permit the Court “to make a rational decision
(citation omitted). The agency therefore has not met its burden
to justify withholding.
b. Exemption 5
14
Case 1:10-cv-00420-EGS Document 17 Filed 12/23/10 Page 15 of 19
day as the board meetings at which the final decisions were made.
agency policy.” Judicial Watch, Inc. v. FDA, 449 F.3d 141, 151
fact that the dates are identical does not necessarily mean that
c. Exemption 8
15
Case 1:10-cv-00420-EGS Document 17 Filed 12/23/10 Page 16 of 19
board meeting minutes and the memoranda from agency staff to the
acting, and how bank condition affects other areas”). Nor does
record, the Court cannot find that FDIC has fulfilled its
16
Case 1:10-cv-00420-EGS Document 17 Filed 12/23/10 Page 17 of 19
d. Exemption 9
Once again, the FDIC has failed to meet its burden to show
3
The Court is particularly troubled by the agency’s
failure to address the temporal component of the exception given
that much of the information withheld was shared at the meetings
in which the FDIC’s Board of Directors decided to provide
assistance to the banks, presumably due to the banks’ immediate
need for help. On this record, the Court fails to understand why
disclosure of such information should be considered “premature”
and thus subject to Exemption 9.
17
Case 1:10-cv-00420-EGS Document 17 Filed 12/23/10 Page 18 of 19
9.
e. Segregability
IV. CONCLUSION
is DENIED. The Court further concludes that FDIC has not met its
18
Case 1:10-cv-00420-EGS Document 17 Filed 12/23/10 Page 19 of 19
19