Pickard v. Department of Justice

Background

William Leonard Pickard brought this Freedom of Information Act case against the United States Department of Justice, seeking Drug Enforcement Administration documents concerning Gordon Todd Skinner, described in the report as a confidential informant. On February 27, 2020, Judge Charles R. Breyer referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins for further proceedings.

The court ordered the government to produce materials previously published by court order in an earlier Kansas case, along with an explanatory chart and a Vaughn index, which identifies records and claimed withholding grounds. Pickard received multiple extensions of the deadline to challenge the sufficiency of the production and filed his motion on April 1, 2021.

Disputes over production and authenticity

Pickard asserted that a 2005 Dangerous Drug Information System report was missing. The government argued that the report was outside the scope of his original request but stated that it conducted a reasonable search and did not find it. After a hearing, the court directed the parties to confer and directed Pickard to identify any earlier request for the report.

Pickard later reported that, apart from the missing report, the government appeared to have provided all relevant materials. He also questioned the authenticity of a risk-assessment document included in the government’s production. Before a later hearing, the government voluntarily provided Pickard with a 2021 printout of Skinner’s report. At the July 28, 2021 hearing, Pickard agreed that the government had produced all requested material.

Court’s analysis

The only remaining dispute concerned whether the court could determine the authenticity of the risk-assessment document. The government argued that authentication was outside the scope of a Freedom of Information Act case. Pickard agreed that point but asked the court to address authentication anyway.

The court concluded that, under the Freedom of Information Act, its authority extended only to deciding whether an agency improperly withheld agency records. It also concluded that its remedial powers were limited to ordering injunctive relief—an order requiring action—to remedy improper withholding, not determining whether produced documents were authentic. The court therefore found that it lacked both jurisdiction and remedial power to address Pickard’s authenticity dispute.

Recommendation and next step

The report found that the government satisfied Pickard’s request by producing all requested documents and that the court lacked jurisdiction or remedial power to address the authenticity dispute. Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins recommended that the matter be considered resolved and that the claim be dismissed. The report states that any party could file a written objection with Judge Charles R. Breyer within 14 days after being served.