Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Defendant hereby renews its motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
56. The grounds for this motion for summary judgment are set forth in the memorandum
submitted herewith.
PETER D. KEISLER
Assistant Attorney General
KENNETH L. WAINSTEIN
United States Attorney
/s/
ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO (Bar No. 418925)
JEFFREY M. SMITH (Bar No. 467936)
ALEXANDER K. HAAS (CA Bar 220932)
Of Counsel: Federal Programs Branch
Andrea Lord United States Department of Justice
Staff Attorney 20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
National Indian Gaming Commission Washington, D.C. 20001
Tel: (202) 514-5751/ (202)307-3937
Fax: (202) 616-8470
Counsel for Defendant
Case 1:05-cv-00806-RMC Document 18 Filed 07/17/2006 Page 2 of 10
As this Court is aware, Plaintiff Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
(“CREW”) filed a request for information pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”),
5 U.S.C. § 552. The National Indian Gaming Commission (“NIGC”) has fully complied with
this request, and previously filed a motion for summary judgment. See Docket Entry 5. Rather
than repeating the facts set forth there and in Defendant’s reply, Defendant incorporates here by
reference the facts and legal arguments in this earlier round of briefing.
On May 17, 2006, the Court denied this motion without prejudice, finding that “the
government might have fully performed its duties to search and disclose requested non-exempt
documents but [has not provided] the Court sufficient information to make that determination.”
See Memorandum Opinion (Mem. Op.), at 1 (May 17, 2006). In compliance with the Court’s
Opinion and Order, NIGC hereby provides the Court with additional information regarding its
search and renews its motion for summary judgment both with respect to the adequacy of the
documents.” Safecard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197, 1201 (D.C. Cir. 1991); Wilson v.
DEA, 414 F. Supp. 2d 5, 9-12 (D.D.C. 2006). To be adequate, a search need not uncover all
relevant documents, so long as the agency can show that it searched all locations likely to contain
documents responsive to the FOIA request. Oglesby v. U.S. Dep’t of the Army, 920 F.2d 57, 68
(D.C. Cir. 1990); Wilson, 414 F. Supp. 2d at 11 (“The adequacy of an agency’s search is not
determined by the results of the search or by the quantity of information ultimately released.
Rather, ‘the adequacy of a FOIA search is generally determined . . . by the appropriateness of the
methods used to carry out the search.’”) (quoting Iturralde v. Comptroller of the Currency, 315
In its Opinion, the Court held that “[t]here is no question of [NIGC’s] good faith or that it
performed a wide-ranging search into all NIGC offices.” Mem. Op., at 5. The Court declined to
grant summary judgment however, because it found that NIGC had not provided sufficient
“information as to what methods were used by the NIGC employees to identify and search for
records likely to contain relevant material.” Id. (citing Oglesby, 920 F.2d 57). The Third
Declaration of Regina Ann McCoy provides this information by explaining: (i) the file systems
maintained by NIGC divisions; and (ii) the file systems searched by NIGC, the rationale for
searching those file systems, and the type of search performed by NIGC in each division. See
Third Declaration of Regina Ann McCoy (“3d McCoy Decl.”), attached as Exhibit A. In short,
NIGC searched all paper and electronic files that were reasonably likely to contain documents
relating to the individuals and entities listed in the Sloan FOIA request, including tribal files,
2
Case 1:05-cv-00806-RMC Document 18 Filed 07/17/2006 Page 4 of 10
investigatory files, enforcement, files, and correspondence files (see id. ¶ 26) and electronic
(including e-mail) files (see id. ¶¶ 21-24, 26) in numerous offices in Washington, D.C. and
The Third Declaration sets forth the nature of the discrete file systems maintained by each
NIGC subdivision. Thus, the Court now has before it detailed explanations of the file systems
of, and kinds of documents retained by, the Office of the Chairman and Commissioners, the
Office of Congressional and Public Affairs, the Office of General Counsel (OGC), the Division
of Contracts, the Division of Audits, the Division of Enforcement, the NIGC regional and
satellite offices, within the Division of Enforcement, the Tribal Background Investigation
Section, within the Division of Enforcement, and the Office of Administration. See id. ¶¶ 11-19.
In light of the file systems maintained by each division, the kinds of documents retained,
and the nature of the FOIA request, NIGC sent the FOIA request on to Office of the Chairman
and Commissioners, Office of Congressional and Public Affairs, Office of General Counsel,
Division of Contracts, and the Division of Enforcement because those were ones that had a
At the Office of the Chairman and Commissioner, several of the records categories were
not searched as they were not responsive to the search. Thus, “NIGC bulletins; biographical files
regarding the NIGC Chairman, Commissioners, and General Counsel; copies of speeches given
by NIGC executives; and internal Commission meeting files, invitations to speak at or attend
conferences or events” were not searched “because they contain data pertaining only to
information about and generated by the Commission” and “do not include contacts or records
with tribes or individuals” as sought by the Sloan request. Id. ¶ 21. However, outgoing
3
Case 1:05-cv-00806-RMC Document 18 Filed 07/17/2006 Page 5 of 10
correspondence and subject files were searched at this office because these might have the names
At the Office of Congressional and Public Affairs, electronic keyword searches “by name
of the individuals, entities, and tribes” listed in the Sloan request were conducted. Id. ¶ 22.
Other manual searches were conducted of “draft legislation working files, outgoing
correspondence, press releases and a media contact list. Id. The Office of Congressional and
Public Affairs did not search files maintaining only “internally generated documents” that would
not contain information on contacts related to the tribes or entities and the named individuals.
Thus neither congressional hearing testimony nor reports to Congress by the Commission were
searched. Id. Similarly, “[s]ubject files on pending litigation and issues were not searched as the
person conducting the search, the Director of Congressional and Public Affairs, was personally
aware that he had not had contact with the individuals, entities, and tribes named in the Sloan
The Office of General Counsel conducted electronic keyword searches “by name of the
individuals, entities, and tribes” listed in the Sloan request were conducted. Id. ¶ 23. The OGC
also searched “subject matter files, outgoing correspondence files, pending legislation files, and
contract review files” because these sorts of files would most likely “produce records related to
or contacts between the Commission and people, tribes, or other entities that were named in the
Sloan search request.” Id. However, OGC did not search files related to enforcement actions or
Indian land files because no documents in either category were kept against the tribes subject to
the Sloan request. The OGC’s litigation files were not searched because the attorneys
performing the search request had personal knowledge that their files contained no information
4
Case 1:05-cv-00806-RMC Document 18 Filed 07/17/2006 Page 6 of 10
The Contract Division conducted electronic keyword searches “by name of the
individuals, entities, and tribes” listed in the Sloan request were conducted. Id. ¶ 24. A search of
the outgoing correspondence file was also searched. Id. The electronic search revealed that “no
management contracts were ever submitted to the agency by the named tribes.” Id. In light of
the absence of such contracts, there would also be no National Environmental Policy Act files to
search. See id. The Contract Division also did not search individual background files because
NIGC could not produce those records without a Privacy Act waiver, which Plaintiff did not
supply. Id.
The Division of Enforcement conducted electronic keyword searches “by name of the
individuals, entities, and tribes” listed in the Sloan request were conducted, with the exception of
the Phoenix office for the Southwest region.1 Id. ¶ 26. In addition, both regional and satellite
offices of NIGC searched “tribal files, investigatory files, enforcement files, and outgoing
correspondence.” Id. However, memoranda of agreements with tribal governments for the
processing of fingerprint background checks were not searched because they were not likely to
uncover responsive documents. Id. Moreover, because Plaintiff did not supply Privacy Act
waivers, the “Tribal Background Investigation Section within the Division of Enforcement was
not asked to conduct a search for the Sloan FOIA.” Id. ¶ 27.
NIGC’s Division of Audits was not tasked with performing a search in response to the
1
The Phoenix office did not search because that none of the Indian tribes cited in the
search request were in that region, and that the region had never heard of the other entities and
individuals involved. That regional office therefore decided it was not reasonably likely that it
would have electronic records responsive to the search terms. Id.
5
Case 1:05-cv-00806-RMC Document 18 Filed 07/17/2006 Page 7 of 10
Sloan request. Id. ¶ 25. Given NIGC’s uncontested interpretation of the FOIA request as
pertaining to “tribal records associated with the named individuals or entities,” no search was
performed at the Division of Audits because “audit reports, internal controls variance reports, and
related correspondence maintained by the Division of Audits “would not be likely to produce
responsive documents.” Id. Based upon a similar uncontested understanding of the records
sought, the Division of Administration did not initially conduct a search. Id. ¶ 28. Some file
systems, such as those relating to “procedural guidelines and directives, fee payments and
quarterly reports, billing records, deposits, and FOIA records” were not searched because they
had nothing to do with contacts between the Commission and the tribes, entities, and individuals
mentioned and were therefore no likely to contain responsive documents. Id. The
correspondence log, which tracks “all incoming mail, packages, and faxes” does not itself
contain any documents because it is merely a log of documents and was not searched. Id. The
rationale for not searching this log was that “the actual logged documents would be located by
the divisions and offices during their searches.” Id. Nevertheless, in an abundance of caution,
NIGC also conducted a search on June 13, 2006, of the incoming correspondence database to
ensure that all correspondence responsive to the Sloan request had been produced. Id. To
“verif[y] that the actual search of the documents themselves . . . revealed all responsive
documents,” NIGC’s search examined this database and “did not reveal the existence of any
2
NIGC’s logbook of visitors was not searched during NIGC’s initial search. Id. ¶ 29.
The logbook covering the relevant time period had been lost before the Sloan request was
received and therefore could not have been searched. Id. After this book was recently found,
NIGC searched it and found one additional page. Id. This additional search is further indication
of NIGC’s good faith. See Meeropol v. Meese, 790 F.2d 942, 953 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (performance
6
Case 1:05-cv-00806-RMC Document 18 Filed 07/17/2006 Page 8 of 10
Finally, the fact that the search did not uncover the volume of documents that plaintiff
expected casts no doubt on the adequacy of NIGC’s search. See Meeropol v. Meese, 790 F.2d
942, 953 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (holding a court cannot dismiss an agency’s motion for summary
judgment where plaintiff alleges the “existence of [responsive records] simply by virtue of their
supposed subject matter”); see also Iturralde, 315 F.3d at 315 (finding that the plaintiff failed to
“offer evidence of circumstances sufficient to overcome an adequate agency affidavit” where the
plaintiff did not demonstrate that the agency “failed to search particular offices or files” that may
have contained responsive records); Oglesby, 920 F.2d at 68 (finding plaintiff’s “own conviction
that the [subject] was of such importance that records must have been created is pure
speculation”).
In sum, NIGC has provided the Court with an exhaustive list of the file systems searched,
the rationale for the selection of offices and systems to include in the searches, and the manner in
which these searches were performed. NIGC has also confirmed both that both the physical
records of NIGC were searched and that electronic keyword searches using the names of the
individuals, entities, and tribes listed in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Sloan request were conducted
in the file systems and divisions noted in the Third McCoy Declaration. NIGC’s search was
thorough and systematic, and it is therefore entitled to summary judgment on the adequacy of this
search.
In its memoranda and affidavits supporting its initial motion for summary judgment,
of additional searches and subsequent releases of information indicates good faith and
“suggest[s] a stronger . . . basis for accepting the integrity of the search”).
7
Case 1:05-cv-00806-RMC Document 18 Filed 07/17/2006 Page 9 of 10
NIGC demonstrated that the documents that were withheld from production to plaintiff were
properly found to be exempt under FOIA. See NIGC Opening Br., Docket Entry 5, at 7-19;
Reply Br., Docket Entry 9, at 7-20. The Court’s Opinion suggests no way in which the affidavits
were deficient in this respect. NIGC thus respectfully renews its motion for summary judgment
with regard to the withheld documents on the basis of the fully briefed arguments from its initial
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the United States’ renewed motion for summary judgment
should be granted.
PETER D. KEISLER
Assistant Attorney General
KENNETH L. WAINSTEIN
United States Attorney
/s/
ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO (Bar No. 418925)
Assistant Branch Director
JEFFREY M. SMITH (Bar No. 467936)
ALEXANDER K. HAAS (CA Bar 220932)
Trial Attorneys, Federal Programs Branch
Of Counsel: United States Department of Justice
Andrea Lord 20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
Staff Attorney Washington, D.C. 20001
National Indian Gaming Commission Tel: (202) 514-5751/ (202)307-3937
Fax: (202) 616-8470
Counsel for Defendant
8
Case 1:05-cv-00806-RMC Document 18 Filed 07/17/2006 Page 10 of 10
[proposed] Order
Upon reviewing Defendant National Indian Gaming Commission’s renewed motion for
summary judgment, the materials submitted in support thereof and in opposition thereto, it is
Exhibit 1
Case 1:05-cv-00806-RMC Document 18-2 Filed 07/17/2006 Page 16 of 16