Musgrave v. Department of Justice

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

_________________________________________

)

SHAWN MUSGRAVE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 21-cv-554 (APM)

)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, )

)

Defendant. )

_________________________________________ )

ORDER

The court hereby denies the parties’ motions for summary judgment, ECF Nos. 32, 36,

without prejudice. The court cannot resolve the present motions because they rest on a declaration that addresses the burdens imposed by responding to Parts 4 and 5 of the FOIA request. See Decl. of Michael G. Seidel, ECF No. 32-3, ¶¶ 26–30. The declaration does not separate out the burdens associated with each Part. Id. Plaintiff, however, has since withdrawn Part 5 of his records demand. Pl.’s Cross-Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 36, at 2. The court is thus left to speculate about the burdens imposed by Part 4 only.

To renew its motion, Defendant shall submit a new declaration that is specific to the burdens imposed by Part 4 of the FOIA request. Such declarations shall (1) identify separately the total number of employees in the Washington and San Francisco field offices covered by Part 4, and (2) respond to Plaintiff’s suggestion that a search could be conducted without undue burden by asking each employee individually to conduct emails searches using one or two search terms. Defendant may submit the precise number of employees ex parte for in camera review, if appropriate, but if it does so, it must disclose a reasonable range to Plaintiff.

Defendant shall file its renewed motion for summary judgment by July 14, 2025; Plaintiff shall file his cross-motion by August 4, 2025; Defendant shall file its combined opposition and reply by August 18, 2025; and Plaintiffs shall file his reply by September 2, 2025.

Dated: June 13, 2025 Amit P. Mehta United States District Judge