Gahagan v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Services, No. 2:2015cv02540 - Document 36 (E.D. La. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS - The Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART USCIS's second motion for summary judgment and DENIES plaintiff's motion to hold USCIS in contempt of Court. USCIS is entitled to judgment as a matter of law with respect to: (1) its referral to the Department of State of four pages of agency records responsive to plaintiff's FOIA request, and (2) its processing of Records #21, #22, #334, and #572. But USCIS has failed to carry its burden of demonstrating full FOIA compliance with respect to its non-disclosure of Records #15, #16, #31, and #32. IT IS ORDERED that within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this order, USCIS shall either disclose Records #15, #16, #31, and #32 to plaintiff in full or produce a new Vaughn index that remedies the deficiencies identified in Section III.C of this order. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance. (bwn)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Gahagan v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Services Doc. 36 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MICHAEL GAHAGAN CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO: 15-2540 UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES SECTION: R ORD ER AN D REASON S This Freedom of Inform ation Act ("FOIA") case involves a dispute between plaintiff Michael Gahagan, an im m igration attorney, and the United States Citizenship and Im m igration Service ("USCIS") regarding plaintiff's request for agency records concerning his client. Plaintiff alleges that USCIS has responded inadequately to his FOIA request; he seeks declaratory relief and attorney fees. USCIS m oves for sum m ary judgm ent, arguing that it has fully com plied with its statutory obligations under FOIA.1 Plaintiff m oves the Court to hold USCIS in contem pt.2 For the following reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in part USCIS's m otion and denies plaintiff's m otion. I. BACKGROU N D The Court has previously ruled on cross-m otions for sum m ary judgm ent, and the facts of this case are set forth m ore fully in the Court's Decem ber 2, 20 15 order.3 As relevant here, the Court denied plaintiff's m otion for sum m ary judgm ent and granted in part and denied in part USCIS's first m otion for sum m ary judgm ent. The Court found that 1 R. Doc. 21. 2 R. Doc. 27. 3 See R. Doc. 20 . Dockets.Justia.com USCIS's motion demonstrated that the agency conducted an adequate search for responsive records but failed to show full FOIA com pliance with respect to two issues: (1) USCIS's referral to the Departm ent of State of four pages of agency records, and (2) USCIS's nondisclosure of eight additional pages of agency records identified in the agency's Vaughn index and supplem ental Vaugh index as Records # 572, # 334, # 21, # 22, # 15, # 16, # 31, and # 32.4 The Court ordered USCIS to produce a new Vaughn index m ore fully explaining its decision to withhold portions of each of these eight docum ents. On Decem ber 16, 20 15, USCIS filed, am ong other things, a revised Vaughn index,5 a revised supplem ental Vaughn index,6 and a declaration by J ohn F. Hackett, the Director of the Office of Inform ation Program s and Services of the Departm ent of State.7 USCIS also filed a m otion asking the Court to deem its supplem ental filings sufficient to satisfy the Court's Decem ber 2, 20 15 order.8 USCIS's supplem ental filings explained the agency's processing of plaintiff's FOIA request as follows: • As to the agency records referred to the De partm ent of State, the Hackett declaration stated that the Departm ent of State has processed and released all records with m inim al redactions.9 4 Id. at 36. 5 R. Doc. 21-1 at 1-22. 6 Id. at 23-27. 7 R. Doc. 21-3. 8 See R. Doc. 21 at 2 ("USCIS prays that this supplem ent be deem ed sufficient to satisfy the Court's order of Decem ber 2, 20 15."). 9 R. Doc. 21-3. 2 • As to Record # 572, the revisedVaughn index stated that the docum ent is a duplicate of another docum ent, Record # 181.10 • As to Record # 334, USCIS's revised Vaughn index elaborated on the original withholding decision, and USCIS's m otion stated that the agency had released the docum ent to plaintiff in full.11 • As to Records # 21 and # 22,USCIS's revised supplem ental Vaughn index stated that the records are lawfully withheld under FOIA exemption five because they fall within the attorney-client privilege. In support, the index states that the em ail chain contained in those docum ents "includes an Im m igration officer providing litigation related inform ation discussed at an Agency m eeting to USCIS Counsel Am isha Sharm a; and a brief distillation of the lawsuit, and request for inform ation needed for litigation . . . ."12 • As to Records # 15, # 16, # 31, and # 32, USCIS's revi ed Vaughn indexes clarified that s the em ail chains contained in those docum ents involve a USCIS attorney. But it did not explain the attorney's role in the com m unications or otherwise expand upon USCIS's initial, inadequate explanation for withholding the records under FOIA exem ption five.13 The Court construed USCIS's supplem ental filings as a second m otion for sum m ary judgm ent, set the m otion for subm ission on May 25, 20 16, and ordered plaintiff to file any 10 R. Doc. 21-1 at 4-5. 11 R. Doc. 21 at 1; see also R. Doc. 21-1 at 10 . 12 R. Doc. 21-1 at 25-26. 13 Com pare R. Doc. 18-3 at 5-6, 8-9 w ith R. Doc. 21-1 at 24-25, 26-27. 3 opposition brief in accordance with Local Rule 7.5.14 Plaintiff filed a tim ely response challenging USCIS's supplem ental filings.15 Plaintiff argues that, contrary to USCIS's assertion, Record # 572 is not a duplicate of Record # 181; that Records # 21 and # 22 cannot be withheld under FOIA exem ption five because they involve com m unications between non-attorneys; and that USCIS's explanation for its non-disclosure of Records # 15, # 16, # 31, and # 32 rem ains deficient for the reasons identified in the Court's Decem ber 2, 20 15 order. In response, USCIS filed a reply brief acknowledging that Record # 572 is not a duplicate of Record # 181 but an independent docum ent, which was withheld in part under FOIE exem ption 7(E).16 USCIS's also states that the agency "seeks to confirm that it is not relying on the attorney-client privilege for withholding com m unication between nonattorneys."17 To that end, the agency states that it has released Record # 21 to plaintiff in full and released Record # 22 with lim ited redactions. USCIS subm its copies of these docum ents as an exhibit to its reply brief.18 Record # 21 is an em ail chain involving two nonattorney em ployees of USCIS, Gom ez and Peacock, in which Peacock sent a litigation tim eline to several recipients, and Gom ez replied: "In the future, provide this only to m e at first so we have a chance to review and go over it before we respond to counsel."19 Record # 22 14 R. Doc. 24. 15 R. Doc. 25. 16 R. Doc. 30 at 2; R. Doc. 30 -1 at 26. 17 R. Doc. 30 at 2. 18 R. Doc. 30 -2. 19 Id. at 1. 4 is also an em ail chain. In the un-redacted portion, Peacock sent the following m essage to Gom ez: "Who would voluntarily want to talk to [plaintiff] Gahagan? I don't believe there are any other alternative solutions."20 Based on its subm issions, USCIS argues that it is entitled to sum m ary judgm ent and an order declaring that it has discharged its FOIA obligations.21 Plaintiff argues that sum m ary judgm ent is im proper and seeks an order holding USCIS in contem pt of court.22 In support, plaintiff contends that USCIS's initial claim of exem ption five protection for Records # 21 and # 22 was m eritless and m ade in bad faith. Thus, plaintiff claim s that USCIS should be "punished" for "knowingly m isleading the court by claim ing that em ails between non-attorneys should be withheld pursuant [to exem ption five]."23 II. LEGAL STAN D ARD Sum m ary judgm ent is available to the defendant in a FOIA case when the agency proves that it has fully discharged its obligations under FOIA, and there is no genuine issue of m aterial fact, after the underlying facts and the inferences to be drawn from them are construed in the light m ost favorable to the FOIA requester. See W eisberg v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 70 5 F.2d 1344, 1350 (D.C. Cir. 1983). The agency m ay satisfy its burden of proof through the subm ission of affidavits that identify the docum ents at issue and explain why they fall under the claim ed exem ption. Cooper Cam eron Corp. v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 20 Id. at 2. 21 R. Doc. 30 at 3. 22 R. Doc. 27. 23 R. Doc. 27-1 at 6. 5 Occupational Safety & Health Adm in., 280 F.3d 539, 543 (5th Cir. 20 0 2). These affidavits m ust be clear, specific, and reasonably detailed while describing the withheld inform ation in a factual and nonconclusory m anner. Id. Further, the court will not grant sum m ary judgm ent if there is contradictory evidence or evidence of agency bad faith. See Gallant v. NLRB, 26 F.3d 168, 171 (D.C. Cir .1994) (quoting Halperin v. CIA, 629 F.2d 144, 148 (D.C. Cir. 1980 )). If the agency m eets all of these requirem ents, the court will norm ally accord the affidavits substantial weight. But a reviewing court m ay also inspect the content of agency docum ents in cam era to determ ine whether they fall under any of the FOIA exem ptions. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B). III. D ISCU SSION A. D o cu m e n ts Re fe rre d to th e D e p artm e n t o f State To begin, USCIS is entitled to sum m ary judgm ent with respect to the four pages of records that it referred to the Departm ent of State for FOIA processing. The Court denied USCIS's first m otion for sum m ary judgm ent on this issue because USCIS failed to explain why its inter-departmental referral would not impair plaintiff's ability to obtain information responsive to his FOIA request in a tim ely m anner. See McGehee v. CIA, 697 F.2d 10 95, 1110 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (holding that a referral system for processing FOIA requests constitutes a "withholding" under FOIA "if its net effect is significantly to im pair the requester's ability to obtain the records or significantly to increase the am ount of tim e he m ust wait to obtain them "). USCIS now subm its a declaration by the Director of the Office of Inform ation Program s and Services of the Departm ent of State, who states that the Departm ent of State has produced the four pages of records referred by USCIS to plaintiff 6 with m inim al redactions.24 Plaintiff does not dispute that the Departm ent of State has released the relevant inform ation; nor does he contest the Departm ent of State's justification for its withholdings. Thus, USCIS has discharged its FOIA obligations with respect to all docum ents referred to the Departm ent of State. B. Re co rd s # 2 1, # 2 2 , # 3 3 4 , an d # 572 USCIS is also entitled to sum m ary judgm ent with respect to its processing of Records # 21, # 22, # 334, and # 572. Beginning with Record # 21, although USCIS initially withheld that docum ent under FOIA exem ption 5, the agency has since released it to plaintiff in full.25 Because USCIS has m ade Record # 21 available to plaintiff, the agency has discharged its FOIA duties with respect to that docum ent. Cf. N.L.R.B. v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 221 (1978) ("[U]nless the requested m aterial falls within one of these nine statutory exem ptions, FOIA requires that records and m aterial in the possession of federal agencies be m ade available on dem and to any m em ber of the general public."). As to Record # 22, USCIS continues to withhold a portion of that docum ent under FOIA exem ption five, and it subm its a revised Vaughn index explaining its decision.26 Exem ption five protects from disclosure "inter-agency or intra-agency m em orandum s or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency." 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5). "To qualify, a docum ent m ust thus satisfy two conditions: its source m ust be a Governm ent agency, and it m ust fall within the am bit of a privilege against discovery under judicial standards that would govern litigation against 24 R. Doc. 21-3. 25 R. Doc. 30 -2 at 1. 26 R. Doc. 21-1 at 25-26. 7 the agency that holds it." Dep't of Interior v. Klam ath W ater Users Protective Ass'n, 532 U.S. 1, 8 (20 0 1). Exem ption five encom passes the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product privilege, and the deliberative process privilege. See Sherm co Indus., Inc. v. Sec'y of the Air Force, 613 F.2d 1314, 1318 (5th Cir. 1980 ). USCIS contends that Record # 22, which is an em ail chain involving agency em ployees, is protected from disclosure under the attorney-client privilege. In the context of a FOIA request, "the agency is the 'client' and the agency's lawyers are the 'attorneys' for the purposes of attorney-client privilege." Judicial W atch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Treasury , 796 F. Supp. 2d 13, 33 (D.D.C. 20 11) (citing In re Lindsey , 148 F.3d 110 0 , 110 5 (D.C. Cir. 1998)). To invoke the privilege, the agency "m ust show that the withheld docum ent (1) involves confidential comm unications between an attorney and [the agency] and (2) relates to a legal m atter for which the [agency] has sought professional advice." Id. (quoting W ilderness Soc'y v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 344 F. Supp. 2d 1, 16 (D.D.C. 20 0 4)). The agency's revised supplem ental Vaughn index carries this burden. The relevant index entry explains that the redacted portions of Record # 22 consist of discussions between USCIS counsel Sharm a and non-attorney personnel concerning litigation against the agency.27 Im portantly, the entry elaborates on this claim by providing the source and recipient of the com m unications, as well as a description of the m atters discussed. See Ctr. For Medicare Advocacy , Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Hum an Servs., 577 F. Supp. 2d 221, 238 (D.D.C. 20 0 8) (explaining that identification of the parties to a com m unication "is critical to the Court's assessm ent of whether the com m unication[ is] between an attorney 27 R. Doc. 21-1 at at 25-26. 8 and a client"). Specifically, the entry states that the redacted inform ation contains "litigation related inform ation discussed at an Agency m eeting, . . . a brief distillation of the lawsuit, and [a] request for inform ation needed for litigation from [USCIS counsel] Sharm a to District Director Cindy N. Gom ez, and other Agency personnel."28 With this newlyprovided inform ation, USCIS's Vaughn index no longer fails for lack of specificity. USCIS's detailed index entry shows that the redacted portions of Record # 22 involve confidential com m unications between USCIS and its counsel. It also explains the connection between the those com m unications and a litigation m atter. Thus, USCIS has adequately explained its conclusion that the withheld portions of Record # 22 fall within exem ption five. Turning to Record # 334, USCIS has m ore fully explained its initial justification for withholding portions of this docum ent in a revised Vaughn index entry.29 In addition, USCIS states that it has now released Record # 334 to plaintiff in full. Plaintiff does not dispute this assertion or contest USCIS's explanation for its initial withholding. Accordingly, USCIS has satisfied FOIA with respect to Record # 334. As to Record # 572, USCIS initially described this as a duplicate of a different, unrelated docum ent. The agency has since acknowledged its error and provided a revised Vaughn index entry describing its justification for withholding portions of Record # 572 under FOIA exem ption 7(E).30 Exem ption 7(E) perm its an agency to withhold law enforcem ent records "to the extent the production of such law enforcem ent records or inform ation . . . would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcem ent 28 Id. 29 R. Doc. 21-1 at 10 . 30 R. Doc. 30 -1 at 26. 9 investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcem ent investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circum vention of the law." 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(E). This "exem ption applies to civil and regulatory proceedings as well as to crim inal m atters." Pope v. United States, 599 F.2d 1383, 1386 (5th Cir. 1979). Im portantly, "[a]n agency is not required to establish with certainty how the release of the inform ation would interfere with enforcem ent proceedings." Benavides v. U.S. Marshals Serv ., 990 F.2d 625 (5th Cir. 1993). Exem ption 7(E) "looks not just for circum vention of the law, but for a risk of circum vention. . . ." Blackw ell v. F.B.I., 646 F.3d 37, 42 (D.C. Cir. 20 11) (quoting May er Brow n LLP v. I.R.S., 562 F.3d 1190 , 1193 (D.C. Cir. 20 0 9)). This exem ption therefore "sets a relatively low bar for the agency to justify withholding: 'Rather than requiring a highly specific burden of showing how the law will be circum vented, exem ption 7(E) only requires that the [agency] dem onstrate logically how the release of the requested inform ation m ight create a risk of circum vention of the law.'" Id. USCIS's subm issions m eet the agency's burden of explaining why Record # 572 falls within exem ption 7(E). USCIS's Vaughn index states that "[t]he information redacted from this docum ent . . . reflects the m anner in which law enforcem ent agencies return inform ation on applicants for im m igration benefits to USCIS."31 It further states that "public knowledge of the types of inform ation used by USCIS in conducting background checks would allow applicants for im m igration benefits to circum vent the system in order 31 R. Doc. 30 -1 at 26. 10 to receive benefits they are not entitled to under" the Im m igration and Nationality Act.32 These submissions explain in reasonably specific detail how release of the withheld portions of Record # 572 would risk circum vention of the nation's im m igration laws. See Benavides, 990 F.2d at 625 (perm itting withholding of Drug Enforcem ent Adm inistration procedures for the use of "buy m oney" because an agency affidavit stated with "reasonably specific detail" that "the release of the inform ation requested would com prom ise the integrity of the undercover techniques and assist drug violators in evading detection and apprehension"). Thus, USCIS has discharged its FOIA obligations with respect to Record # 572. C. Re co rd s # 15, # 16 , # 3 1, an d # 3 2 Unlike with the preceding issues, USCIS fails to dem onstrate com plete FOIA com pliance with respect to Records # 15, # 16, # 31, and # 32. According to USCIS's Vaughn indexes, each docum ent contains em ails between various USCIS em ployees. USCIS withholds each em ail chain, in whole or in part, under FOIA exem ption five, which encom passes the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product privilege, and the deliberative process privilege. Sherm co Indus., 613 F.2d at 1318. In its order denying USCIS's first m otion for sum m ary judgm ent, the Court rejected USCIS's conclusory justification for withholding Records # 15, # 16, # 31, and # 32 as insufficient to satisfy FOIA.33 The Court explained that because the relevant Vaughn index entries did little m ore than parrot the statutory language of exem ption five, they failed to justify USCIS's non-disclosure of the requested inform ation. See Senate of the Com . of Puerto Rico on Behalf of Judiciary Com m . v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 823 F.2d 574, 585 (D.C. 32 Id. 33 R. Doc. 20 at 27-31. 11 Cir. 1987) ("[C]onclusory assertions of privilege will not suffice to carry” the agency's burden."). The Court therefore ordered USCIS to produce a revised Vaughn index m ore fully explaining why the challenged records fall within one of the privileges encom passed by exem ption five.34 Although USCIS subm itted revised Vaughn indexes, the index entries for Records # 15, # 16 , # 31, and # 32 rem ain unchanged. Those entries are therefore identical to entries the Court deem ed insufficient in ruling on USCIS's first m otion for sum m ary judgm ent.35 USCIS did clarify elsewhere in its Vaughn index revisions that one of the individuals involved in the relevant em ail chains is a USCIS attorney.36 But "the attorney-client privilege does not extend to com m unications sim ply because they involve the governm ent's counsel." Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. Dep't of Justice, 584 F. Supp. 2d 65, 82 n. 24 (D.D.C. 20 0 8) (citing Judicial W atch, Inc. v. Dep't of Arm y , 435 F. Supp. 2d 81, 89 (D.D.C. 20 0 6)). Absent som e additional explanation of what the challenged docum ents contain and why their contents were withheld, USCIS is not entitled to sum m ary judgm ents with respect to any of the challenged docum ents. See Safew ay , Inc. v. I.R.S., No. C 0 5-3182 SBA, 20 0 6 WL 30 410 79, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 20 0 6) ("[T]he IRS' declarations contain what appears to be boilerplate language, and no detail whatsoever about the nature of the supposedly privileged com m unications. Such declarations are insufficient to m eet the agency's burden."). Thus, USCIS shall produce a new Vaughn index that provides a m ore detailed justification for the agency's withholding of Records # 15, # 16, # 31, and # 32. 34 Id. at 37. 35 Com pare R. Doc. 18-3 at 5-6, 8-9 w ith R. Doc. 21-1 at 24-25, 26-27. 36 R. Doc. 21-1 at 25-26. 12 D. Plain tiff's Co n te m p t Mo tio n Having resolved USCIS's second m otion for sum m ary judgm ent, the Court turns to plaintiff's m otion to hold USCIS in contem pt of court.37 Plaintiff argues that USCIS should be "punished" because the agency has continuously argued a m eritless claim in seeking to withhold Records # 21 and # 22 under FOIA exem ption five. According to plaintiff, USCIS's earlier argum ents for applying exem ption five to the em ail chains contained in those docum ents hinged on USCIS's false contention that two of its em ployees, Gom ez and Peacock, are attorneys. Thus, plaintiff asks the Court to hold USCIS in contem pt for willfully m isleading the Court and to enter an order providing that USCIS has litigated this case in bad faith.38 Courts have inherent power to enforce com pliance with judicial orders through civil contem pt. See Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 370 (1966); Cook v. Ochsner Found. Hosp., 559 F.2d 270 , 272 (5th Cir. 1977). This power extends to FOIA cases. See Renegotiation Bd. v. Bannercraft Clothing Co., 415 U.S. 1, 13 (1974) (explaining that courts have authority "to punish the responsible em ployee for contem pt in the event of noncom pliance" with a court order m andating production of records responsive to a FOIA request). "A m ovant in a civil contem pt proceeding bears the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence: (1) that a court order was in effect, (2) that the order required certain conduct by the respondent, and (3) that the respondent failed to com ply with the court's order." Am . Airlines, Inc. v. Allied Pilots Ass'n, 228 F.3d 574, 581 (5th Cir. 20 0 0 ) (quoting Martin v . Trinity Indus., Inc., 959 F.2d 45, 47 (5th Cir. 1992)). The 37 R. Doc. 27. 38 R. Doc. 27-1 at 6. 13 violation need not be willful or in bad faith to warrant sanctions. Instead, the contem nor need only have violated a court order after it was entered. Id.; see also N.L.R.B. v. Trailw ay s, Inc., 729 F.2d 10 13, 10 17 (5th Cir. 1984) (finding in a civil contem pt proceeding that "the only issue is the Com pany's actual com pliance with this Court's orders; any absence of willfulness is irrelevant"). Civil contem pt is unwarranted in this case because plaintiff has not established that USCIS is in violation of a judicial order. In its Decem ber 2, 20 15 ruling denying USCIS's first m otion for sum m ary judgm ent, the Court ordered USCIS to produce a revised Vaughn index that m ore fully explains its referral of four pages of records to the Departm ent of State, as well as its justification for withholding eight additional pages under various FOIA exem ptions.39 USCIS com plied with that order, subm itting two revised Vaughn indexes and a declaration by the Director of the Office of Inform ation Program s and Services of the Departm ent of State. As explained above, USCIS's supplem ental filings dem onstrate that the agency has discharged its FOIA obligations with respect to m ost of the issues in this case. That the newly-provided inform ation fails to show that USCIS is entitled to sum m ary judgm ent with respect to Records # 15, # 16, # 31, and # 32 does not m ean the agency flouted a judicial decree. It m erely shows that unless USCIS provides additional explanation for its non-disclosure of those docum ents, it is not entitled to judgm ent as a m atter of law. Moreover, although plaintiff seeks an order declaring that USCIS has defended this lawsuit in bad faith, the record does not support his request. Contrary to plaintiff's assertion, USCIS has never argued that Gom ez and Peacock are attorneys. True, USCIS's 39 R. Doc. 20 at 37. 14 initial supplem ental Vaughn index cited FOIA exem ption five as the agency's basis for withholding two em ails between Gom ez and Peacock, Record # 21 and the first half of Record # 22. But exem ption five encom passes three distinct privileges: the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product privilege, and the deliberative process privilege. Sherm co Indus., 613 F.2d at 1318. Unlike the first two privileges, the deliberative process privilege does not require the presence or participation of an attorney. See Vaughn v. Rosen, 523 F.2d 1136, 1143-44 (D.C. Cir. 1975) (explaining that the deliberative process privilege protects docum ents that are pre-decisional and part of the agency's deliberative process). Because USCIS specifically cited the deliberative process privilege in its initial Vaughn indexes, and because the agency produced the Gom ez-Peacock em ails after it withdrew its deliberative process privilege claim , the Court does not interpret USCIS's initial invocation of exem ption five as an im plicit claim that Gom ez and Peacock are attorneys for USCIS. Thus, plaintiff fails to substantiate his allegations of bad faith, and the Court denies plaintiff's request for an order condem ning USCIS's conduct in this litigation. IV. CON CLU SION For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART USCIS's second m otion for sum m ary judgm ent and DENIES plaintiff's m otion to hold USCIS in contem pt of Court. USCIS is entitled to judgm ent as a m atter of law with respect to: (1) its referral to the Departm ent of State of four pages of agency records responsive to plaintiff's FOIA request, and (2) its processing of Records # 21, # 22, # 334, and # 572. But USCIS has failed to carry its burden of dem onstrating full FOIA com pliance with respect to its non-disclosure of Records # 15, # 16, # 31, and # 32. 15 IT IS ORDERED that within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this order, USCIS shall either disclose Records # 15, # 16, # 31, and # 32 to plaintiff in full or produce a new Vaughn index that rem edies the deficiencies identified in Section III.C of this order. 26th New Orleans, Louisiana, this _ _ _ day of J uly, 20 16. _______________________________ SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT J UDGE 16
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
