The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Caputo
Presently before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, or in the alterative, for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 8). In his action before the Court, Plaintiff David M. Baker seeks to compel his employer, the United States Secret Service, to comply with his Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request. As of the filing of the Complaint, the Secret Service had not yet fulfilled Baker's FOIA request, although it provided an allegedly complete disclosure shortly after the Complaint was filed. Based on its subsequent disclosure, the Defendant argues that the Court is now without jurisdiction over the matter. Conversely, Plaintiff argues that jurisdiction remains as the delay itself comprises a statutory violation of the FOIA and that the Defendant has not properly detailed the exemptions it relies upon for withholding certain material. For the reasons below, the Court finds that jurisdiction remains over the matter and will direct the Defendant to submit an appropriately detailed Vaughn Index as to the withheld parts.
Plaintiff David M. Baker filed his Complaint in this Court on March 29, 2011. The purpose of his Complaint was to compel the United States Department of Homeland Security to comply with his April 8, 2009 Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request made pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552. Baker is an employee of the United States Secret Service, and his FOIA request sought to unearth, in pertinent part, "[f]ull and complete copies of any and all documents/records/files whatsoever relating to [his] current, ongoing dispute with the United States Secret Service regarding [his] service in the Reserve Component of the United States Navy . . . ." (Pl.'s Ex. A, Doc. 21-1).
The Secret Service's Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts ("FOI/PA") Office received Baker's request on April 24, 2009 and returned acknowledgment of the request in an April 29, 2009 letter. The FOI/PA Office for the Secret Service conducted a search of their online computer system, which is comprised of five separate databases. This search uncovered only two files pertaining to Baker, and both were deemed unresponsive to the scope of his request. On April 24, 2009, per Baker's FOIA request, the FOI/PA Office also forwarded search requests to: (1) the Office of Human Resources and Training, Office of the Assistant Director; (2) the Personnel Division; and (3) the Office of Chief Counsel.
In his declaration, Craig W. Ulmer, the FOI/PA Officer for the Secret Service, avers that while the Office of Human Resources could not locate any responsive records, the other two aforementioned offices forwarded the documents they determined as responsive to the FOI/PA Office for review. (Ulmer Decl. at ¶¶ 15-17, Doc. 12). Later, on March 10-11, 2010, the FOI/PA Office sent further requests to the Philadelphia Field Office and the Scranton Resident Office. (Id. at ¶ 18). The Philadelphia Office uncovered no responsive records. (Id. at ¶ 19). The Scranton Office initially failed to respond, and a subsequent request made in October of 2011 prompted that Office to forward its responsive records to the FOI/PA Office. (Id. at ¶ 20). Lastly, the FOI/PA contacted Human Resources Specialist Beverly Steadman of the Special Agent and Uniformed Division Support Branch as it was determined that she had spoken with Baker about the subject of his request. (Id. at ¶ 21). However, this uncovered no additional responsive documents. (Id.).
On February 11, 2010, Baker wrote to Ulmer, inquiring as to the status of his request and reminding the FOI/PA Office that their delay was in violation of the time frame prescribed by law. (Pl.'s Ex. C, Doc. 21-1 at 3). Ulmer responded on February 16, 2010, informing Baker that his file was being reviewed for release. (Pl.'s Ex. D, Doc. 21-1 at 4). Ulmer wrote Baker again on March 12, 2010, referencing a conversation Baker had had with a member of Ulmer's staff, noting that Baker's FOIA request had "generated a voluminous amount of records," and presenting Baker with the option of partial releases or "one complete response package." (Pl.'s Ex. E, Doc. 21-1 at 5). Baker wrote back on March 18, 2010, requesting clarification of the status of his request, specifically as to the delay in the initial determination letter. (Pl.'s Ex. F, Doc. 21-1 at 6). Receiving no response, Baker reiterated his concerns about his request to William H. Holzerland, the Associate Director for Disclosure Policy & FOIA Program Development, in a May 18, 2010 email. (Pl.'s Ex. G, Doc. 21-1 at 8). After a few exchanges, Holzerland wrote that the final touches were being made to Baker's report and that "there appear[ed] to be light at the end of the tunnel." (Pl.'s Ex. I, Doc. 21-1 at 10).
On April 21, 2011--over three weeks from the filing of the instant suit and almost two years from the filing of his initial request--the FOI/PA Office made its first disclosure in response to Baker's FOIA request. (Def.'s Ex. C, Doc. 12). On November 4, 2011, the FOI/PA Office made a subsequent disclosure of five documents that had been previously withheld in full or in part,*fn1 and also disclosed all seven additional pages in full that were determined responsive from the Scranton Office. (Ulmer Decl. at ¶¶ 26-28, Doc. 12). In total, after reviewing all documents flagged as responsive pursuant to the Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts, the FOI/PA Office ultimately compiled a total of 1,935 pages of responsive documents. (Id. at ¶ 30, Doc. 12). Of these, 1,804 were produced in full, 30 were produced in part, and 101 were withheld in full. (Id.). The 101 withheld pages were retained under the Privacy Act's exemption as to "information compiled in reasonable anticipation of a civil action or proceeding," 5 U.S.C. § 552a(d)(5), as well as the FOIA exemption for attorney work product, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5). (Id. at ¶ 31). Of the thirty redacted pages, twenty-three were redacted solely as to exemption (b)(5) (attorney work product), four solely under exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C) (unwarranted invasions of personal privacy), one under (b)(2) (internal agency practices), and two under exemptions (b)(2), (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C). (Id. at ¶ 32).
The Secret Service, representing that their FOIA disclosure to Baker is now complete, believes that Baker's action has become moot and has motioned to dismiss, or in the alterative, for summary judgment, against Baker's claims. (Def.'s Mot., Doc. 8). While Baker does not contest the adequacy of the Secret Service's search, he argues that there remains a justiciable controversy as to "the Agency's very untimely release of records, the Agency's refusal to release any records until after litigation was commenced by the Plaintiff; and the Agency's failure to provide a Vaughn Index in support of withholding documents under claimed exemptions." (Pl.'s Br. at 8, Doc. 21). The Plaintiff's Motion has now been fully briefed and is ripe for review.
I. Jurisdiction as to Defendant's Failure to Respond to the FOIA Request
Congress enacted the FOIA "to facilitate public access to Government documents." U.S. Dep't of State v. Ray, 502 U.S. 164, 173 (1991) (citation omitted). In furthering this objective, the FOIA requires federal agencies to make information in their possession available to the public unless the information falls under one of nine enumerated exemptions, which are to be narrowly construed. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b); Milner v. Dep't of the Navy, 131 S.Ct. 1259, 1262 (2011). District Courts have jurisdiction over FOIA actions solely to "enjoin the agency from withholding agency records and to order the production of any agency records improperly withheld from the complainant." 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B); Kissinger v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of Press, 445 U.S. 136, 150 (1980) ("federal jurisdiction is dependent upon a showing that an agency has (1) 'improperly'; (2) 'withheld'; (3) 'agency records.'"). As agency determinations as to FOIA requests are directed to be made within twenty business days, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(ii), Baker argues that "it is very easy to conclude that the Agency (1) improperly (2) withheld (3) agency records." (Pl.'s Br. at 6, Doc. 21).
However, in the realm of FOIA litigation, mootness occurs when the requested documents have already been produced to the requestor. Campbell v. Social Security Admin., No. 10--2255, 2011 WL 2164120, at *3 (3d Cir. Jun. 3, 2011) (citing OSHA Data/CIH, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 220 F.3d 153, 168 (3d Cir.2000)). In fact, it is well established that "[o]nce the government produces all the documents a plaintiff requests, her claim for relief under the FOIA becomes moot." Cornucopia Inst. v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 560 F.3d 673, 675 (7th Cir. 2009) (alteration in original) (citing Walsh v. U.S. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, 400 F.3d 535, 536 (7th Cir. 2005)). Such mootness occurs as the essence of the complaint has been eliminated through the making of the disclosure. Perry v. Block, 684 F.2d 121, 125 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (citing Crooker v. U.S. State Dep't, 628 F.2d 9, 10 (D.C. Cir. 1980)). This rule applies to the government's eventual production,"however belatedly" it was made. Id.
The procedural history of the instant matter is highly analogous to a recent case out of the Southern District of New York, New York Times Company v. Federal Bureau of Investigation. No. 10 CV 7920, --- F.Supp.2d ---, 2011 WL 5346031 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 2011). There, the New York Times's FOIA request sought access to information the FBI had previously provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Id. at *1. The FBI initially refused the request, and the Times filed an administrative appeal, which sustained the FBI's determination. Id. at *2. After the Times filed suit to reverse this determination, the FBI released a copy of the requested letter with redactions. Id. Plaintiffs then moved for summary judgment as to their FOIA request. Id. Prior to responding to the Plaintiff's motion, the FBI released ...