McCann v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LANIE McCANN 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 22-2502
UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP 	SECTION: “H”
AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES
ORDER AND REASONS
Before 	the 	Court 	is 	Defendant 	United 	States 	Citizenship 	and
Immigration Services’ Response to the Court’s Order Dated July 24, 2023 (Doc.
26). For the following reasons, the Court finds that Defendant has adequately
addressed the deficiencies identified in this Court’s prior Order granting
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in part. As such, the Court
supplements its July 24, 2023 Order (Doc. 25) and GRANTS Defendant’s
Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 19) IN FULL.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff 	Lanie 	McCann 	submitted 	a 	Freedom 	of 	Information 	Act
(“FOIA”) request to Defendant United States Citizenship and Immigration
Services on January 3, 2022. In her request, Plaintiff sought information
regarding Defendant’s decision to issue a Notice of Intent to Revoke Permanent
Resident Status. Defendant responded to Plaintiff’s FOIA request through a
series of disclosures, ultimately releasing 678 pages in full and 357 pages in
Case 2:22-cv-02502-JTM-DPC Document 34 Filed 03/05/26 Page 1 of 7

2
part.1 However, Defendant withheld 177 pages in full. Plaintiff filed this
lawsuit on August 5, 2022, challenging Defendant’s processing of and search
for responsive records under FOIA.
Defendant moved for summary judgment, stating that it had carried its
burden of showing it has processed and released all responsive documents,
barring those properly withheld under the articulated FOIA exceptions.2 The
Court granted Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in part but denied
it in part, citing a lack of factual support that precluded the Court from
granting the Motion in full.3 Specifically, the Court found that Defendant had
not addressed whether a page referred to United States Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) on May 9, 2022 was withheld subject to a FOIA
exception and that Defendant had not provided sufficient detail regarding its
search for responsive documents. Accordingly, the Court ordered Defendant to
file a supplemental declaration addressing those deficiencies by August 25,
2023. Defendant timely filed its Response to the Court’s Order, attaching a
supplemental declaration. Having given Defendant the opportunity to properly
support its assertions of fact, the Court now considers whether it may grant
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in full.
LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is the preferred method of resolving FOIA cases.4 In
most litigation, “a motion for summary judgment is properly granted only if
1 Doc. 23 at 4.
2 Doc. 19.
3 Doc. 25.
4 Evans v. U.S. OPM, 276 F. Supp. 2d 34, 37 (D.C. Cir. 2003).
Case 2:22-cv-02502-JTM-DPC Document 34 Filed 03/05/26 Page 2 of 7

3
there is no genuine issue as to any material fact.”5 “The FOIA context is
unusual, however, because the threshold question in any FOIA suit is whether
the requester can even see the documents the character of which determines
whether they can be released.”6 “Summary judgment is available to the
defendant in a FOIA case when the agency proves that it has fully discharged
its obligations under FOIA, and there is no genuine issue of material fact, after
the underlying facts and the inferences to be drawn from them are construed
in the light most favorable to the FOIA requester.”7
“Courts generally will grant an agency’s motion for summary judgment
only if the agency identifies the documents at issue and explains why they fall
under exemptions.”8 Accordingly, the government bears the burden of proving
that the withheld documents fall within an enumerated exemption.9 The
agency may carry its burden of proof by submitting specific and reasonably
detailed affidavits that identify the documents in question and explain the
applicability of the exemption.10 Absent evidence of bad faith, the truthfulness
of the agency’s affidavits should not be questioned.11
5 Cooper Cameron Corp. v. U.S. Dep’t of Lab., Occupational Safety & Health Admin., 280
F.3d 539, 543 (5th Cir. 2002) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986)).
6 Id.
7 Mavadia v. Caplinger, No. CIV. A. 95-3542, 1996 WL 592742, at *1 (E.D. La. Oct. 11, 1996).
8 Cooper Cameron Corp., 280 F.3d at 543.
9 U.S. Dep’t of Justice v. Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. 136, 141 n.2 (1989); see also 5 U.S.C.
§ 552(a)(4)(B) (stating that “the burden is on the agency to sustain its action”).
10 Mavadia, 1996 WL 592742, at *1 (“These affidavits must be clear, specific and reasonably
detailed while describing the withheld information in a factual and nonconclusory
manner.”).
11 Matter of Wade, 969 F.2d 241, 246 (7th Cir.1992) (“Without evidence of bad faith, the
veracity of the government’s submissions regarding reasons for withholding the documents
should not be questioned.”); Hemenway v. Hughes, 601 F. Supp. 1002, 1004 (D.D.C. 1985)
(stating that in FOIA cases, summary judgment does not hinge on the existence of a genuine
issue of material fact, but rather on the basis of agency affidavits if they are reasonably
specific, demonstrate logical use of exemptions, and are not controverted by evidence in
record or bad faith).
Case 2:22-cv-02502-JTM-DPC Document 34 Filed 03/05/26 Page 3 of 7

4
FOIA requires a federal agency, upon request, to disclose records in its
possession, unless the requested documents are clearly exempt from disclosure
by the statute.12 The nine exemptions are exclusive and should be construed
narrowly.13 These exemptions protect interests such as personal privacy,
national security, and law enforcement. FOIA was “enacted to facilitate public
access to Government documents.”14 The purpose of the statute was to “pierce
the veil of administrative secrecy and to open agency action to the light of
public scrutiny.”15 Thus, there is a strong presumption in favor of disclosure.16
LAW AND ANALYSIS
“If a party fails to properly support an assertion of fact or fails to properly
address another party’s assertion of fact as required by [Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure] 56(c), the court may (1) give an opportunity to properly support or
address the fact; (2) consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion;
(3) grant summary judgment if the motion and supporting materials . . . show
that the movant is entitled to it; or (4) issue any other appropriate order.”17
Given that summary judgment is the preferred method of resolving FOIA
disputes, the Court opted in its July 24, 2023 Order to give Defendant an
opportunity to address two evidentiary deficiencies that precluded the Court
from 	granting 	Defendant’s 	Motion 	for 	Summary 	Judgment 	outright.18
12 Dasilva v. USCIS, No. 13-13, Doc. 68 (E.D. La. Sept. 19, 2013) (first citing 5 U.S.C. § 552
(a)–(b); and then citing NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 136 (1975)).
13 Dep’t of the Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 361 (1976); Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820,
823 (D.C. Cir. 1973).
14 U.S. Dep’t of State v. Ray, 502 U.S. 164, 173 (1991).
15 Rose, 425 U.S. at 361.
16 Ray, 502 U.S. at 173 (citing Rose, 425 U.S. at 361).
17 FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e).
18 See Evans, 276 F. Supp. 2d at 37.
Case 2:22-cv-02502-JTM-DPC Document 34 Filed 03/05/26 Page 4 of 7

5
Specifically, the Court ordered Defendant to (1) address whether the last page
of seventeen pages that were referred to ICE on May 9, 2022 was being
withheld subject to a lawful FOIA exemption or whether it must be produced;
and 	(2) 	provide 	additional 	details 	regarding 	its 	search 	for 	responsive
documents. 	In 	response, 	Defendant 	submitted 	the 	Declaration 	of 	Jarrod
Panter 	(“Panter”) 	to 	supplement 	the 	Declaration 	of 	Cynthia 	Munita
(“Munita”), which was submitted with its Motion for Summary Judgment.19
Plaintiff did not reply to Defendant’s Response or object to the Court’s July 24,
2023 Order. The Court will address whether Panter’s Declaration resolves each
deficiency in turn.
A. 	The Seventeenth Page Referred on May 9, 2022
Plaintiff argued in its Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment that Defendant unlawfully withheld the seventeenth page referred
to ICE on May 9, 2022.20 Panter’s Declaration clarifies that the seventeenth
page referred on May 9, 2022, also identified on the USCIS Vaughn Index as
page number 523, “was not actually referred to ICE,” but “is the back-side of
the USCIS Vaughn Index page 522 which was referred to ICE.”21 Panter
further declares that because the page was never referred to ICE, it was not
described in ICE’s Vaughn Index. In addition to attaching the page to his
declaration, Panter indicates that the seventeenth page “was actually released
19 Defendant identifies Panter as the Acting Associate Center Director and Chief FOIA
Officer in the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act Unit, National Records Center,
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services within the United States Department
of Homeland Security. Munita held Panter’s position at that time Defendant filed its Motion
for Summary Judgment. Doc. 19-2.
20 Doc. 20-1 at 10.
21 Doc. 26-1 at 7.
Case 2:22-cv-02502-JTM-DPC Document 34 Filed 03/05/26 Page 5 of 7

6
to Plaintiff” on February 22, 2022. As the seventeenth page has been produced,
Plaintiff’s argument that the document has been unlawfully withheld is moot.
B. 	Search Adequacy
Defendant’s 	Motion 	for 	Summary 	Judgment 	argued 	in 	part 	that
summary 	judgment 	was 	appropriate 	as 	a 	matter 	of 	law 	because 	it 	had
conducted a legally adequate search. This Court found in its prior Order that
Defendant failed to meet its burden, as Munita’s Declaration lacked detail the
Court needed in order to determine whether Defendant’s search was legally
adequate.
“An agency may demonstrate that it conducted an adequate search [for
documents] by showing that it used ‘methods [that] can be reasonably expected
to produce the information requested.’”22 “The required level of detail is
satisfied if the agency affidavit ‘set[s] forth the search terms and the type of
search 	performed, 	and 	aver[s] 	that 	all 	files 	likely 	to 	contain 	responsive
materials 	(if 	such 	records 	exist) 	were 	searched.’”23 	Panter’s 	Declaration
provides the details the Court previously found lacking. Panter describes the
types of searches performed, the search terms used, how the searches were
performed, 	who 	performed 	the 	searches 	and 	controlled 	the 	responsive
documents, and what locations were searched. Further, Panter’s declaration
addresses whether any other components of USCIS likely held responsive
documents and affirms that they did not. Accordingly, the Court finds that
Panter’s Declaration contains sufficient detail to carry Defendant’s burden to
demonstrate it conducted a legally adequate search.
22 Batton, 598 F.3d at 177.
23 Gahagan, 2014 WL 2158479, at *4.
Case 2:22-cv-02502-JTM-DPC Document 34 Filed 03/05/26 Page 6 of 7

7
CONCLUSION
Defendant has adequately supplemented the evidentiary basis for its
Motion, such that summary judgment is now appropriate. As such, the Court
supplements its July 24, 2023 Order (Doc. 25) wherein the Court granted
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in part and denied it in part.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
(Doc. 19) is GRANTED IN FULL. Judgment shall be issued in favor of
Defendant, with each party to bear their own costs.
New Orleans, Louisiana this 5th day of March, 2026.
____________________________________
JANE TRICHE MILAZZO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:22-cv-02502-JTM-DPC Document 34 Filed 03/05/26 Page 7 of 7