Greene v. U.S. Department of Justice

Background

Kyle Richard Greene, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the U.S. Department of Justice and Natasha Hudgins under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). He alleged that they improperly withheld agency records concerning the federal grand-jury process in the District of Minnesota from January 1, 2011, through the date of his request. His request sought ten categories of information, including indictment totals, “no bills,” investigations, securities-law prosecutions, procedures for bringing cases before a grand jury, and documents concerning access to the grand jury.

Greene mailed the request on December 23, 2019. The Department of Justice acknowledged it on January 17, 2020, invoked a statutory extension, and assigned the request to its complex processing track. Greene filed this lawsuit on May 19, 2020, before receiving a substantive response. The Department eventually responded on October 28, 2020, with a one-page chart showing the number of indictments returned each year from 2011 through 2020. It explained that many of the requested categories were not tracked by the Department or the District of Minnesota.

Mootness and exhaustion

The Department moved to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment. It argued that the case was moot because it had responded, that Greene had not exhausted administrative remedies, and that its search was reasonable.

The court held that any claim based only on the delay in responding was moot. Once the Department provided a response, the court could no longer grant relief based solely on the timing of that response. The court therefore granted dismissal of the timeliness claim without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

The court separately held that Greene’s complaint also challenged the adequacy of the Department’s response, including whether the agency had provided all responsive records. That claim remained live. The court concluded that FOIA’s constructive-exhaustion provision applied to the entire request, not just to a claim about delay. Because the Department had not complied with FOIA’s deadline when Greene filed suit, he was treated as having exhausted his administrative remedies. The court therefore denied the Department’s request to dismiss the complaint for failure to exhaust.

The court dismissed Natasha Hudgins as a defendant because FOIA authorizes suits against federal agencies, and not individual agency employees. The court also rejected Greene’s request for a writ requiring Hudgins to act, reasoning that FOIA provided an adequate alternative remedy.

Adequacy of the search

The court granted the Department summary judgment on Greene’s claims challenging the adequacy of its search. Summary judgment is a decision entered when the record shows no genuine dispute over a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

The Department submitted declarations describing searches of the Minnesota U.S. Attorney’s Office records and national Department of Justice records maintained by Data Integrity and Analysis staff. The searches showed that the agency tracked the total number of indictments but did not track the other requested categories. The court found that the agency searched places where responsive records reasonably could have been found and provided the responsive information in its possession.

The court concluded that FOIA did not require the Department to create new documents or perform calculations to generate information that it did not maintain. It also held that the Department was not required to search records held by the National Archives and Records Administration, a separate agency, or provide information outside its control when Greene made his request. Greene’s unsupported claims that the Department was lying or continuing to withhold records did not defeat summary judgment.

Other requests and final disposition

The court rejected Greene’s request for a declaration that he was as entitled as federal law-enforcement agents to approach the grand jury. A declaratory judgment is a remedy, not a separate legal claim, and FOIA authorizes orders requiring agencies to produce improperly withheld records. Because the Department had shown that it provided all responsive records in its possession, the court granted summary judgment on this request.

The court also granted summary judgment on Greene’s request for a search-fee waiver because the Department had charged no search fees. The court deferred ruling on Greene’s request for litigation costs, allowing him to file a later motion for costs.

The court granted Greene’s motion for an enlargement of time. It granted in part and denied in part the Department’s motion to dismiss or for summary judgment as follows: it granted dismissal of Hudgins; granted dismissal without prejudice of the timeliness claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; denied dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; and granted summary judgment on the claims challenging the adequacy of the search. Except for the timeliness claim, which was dismissed without prejudice, the court dismissed Greene’s complaint with prejudice and directed that judgment be entered.