White v. United States Department of Agriculture, Rural Development Division

-1-
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
BRANDY WHITE, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-24-254-GLJ
)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 	)
AGRICULTURE, RURAL 	)
DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff 	Brandy 	White 	brought 	this 	action 	against 	Defendant 	United 	States
Department 	of 	Agriculture, 	Rural 	Development 	Division 	(“USDA”), 	alleging 	that
Defendant violated the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, by failing
to provide requested documents and conduct an adequate search for documents. On January
21, 2026, the Court held a bench trial to resolve whether Defendant conducted an adequate
search for records. The Court has thoroughly considered the relevant law, evidence, and
the arguments presented at trial, and now makes the following findings of fact and
conclusions of law in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a). For the reasons set forth herein,
the Court enters judgment for Defendant and against Plaintiff on all claims.
I. 	Stipulations
1. 	On April 10, 2024, Plaintiff requested documents from the USDA pursuant to FOIA.
2. 	Plaintiff sent e-mails inquiries to the USDA from May 2024 through July 2024 to
inquire into the status of her FOIA request.
6:24-cv-00254-GLJ Document 62 Filed in ED/OK on 03/31/26 Page 1 of 10

-2-
3. 	Plaintiff received spreadsheets from the USDA on July 25, 2024. 1
4. 	The USDA did not provide documents within the statutorily required twenty working
days.
II. 	Findings of Fact
1. 	In late 2023 through early 2024, Plaintiff Brandy White was a resident of the Silver
Leaf II Apartments (“Silver Leaf”) located in Haskell, Oklahoma.
2. 	Silver Leaf participates in the USDA’s rental assistance program, which provides
subsidies to low-income families to assist with the payment of rent and utilities.
3. 	Shortly after moving into Silver Leaf, Plaintiff had a change in income and a change in
family status.
4. 	Plaintiff reported these changes to Silver Leaf but not the USDA.
5. 	In early 2024 Silver Leaf initiated an eviction action against Plaintiff for rent owed as
Plaintiff was either not paying at all or paying less than what was alleged to be owed.
6. 	Based on the change in income and family status, Plaintiff believed her monthly amount
owed to Silver Leaf should have been reduced.
7. 	On April 10, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel, via e-mail, requested documents pursuant to
FOIA and requested “all information related to payments made by the USDA on behalf
of Ms. White, for her unit at the Silver Leaf Apartments complex[.]” Pl.’s Hr’g Ex. 1,
at p. 1.
1 These spreadsheets are the “Multi-Family Information System Project Worksheet” discussed
infra. Despite stipulating to receiving these spreadsheets on July 25, 2024, Pl.’s Hr’g Ex. 13
reflects that these exhibits were produced on July 24, 2024.
6:24-cv-00254-GLJ Document 62 Filed in ED/OK on 03/31/26 Page 2 of 10

-3-
8. 	Plaintiff’s counsel received no response and sent follow-up e-mails on May 22, 2024,
and June 10, 2024. Pl.’s Hr’g Exs. 2 & 3.
9. 	On June 10, 2024, the USDA advised Plaintiff that the FOIA request was being
processed. Pl.’s Hr’g Ex. 4.
10. Plaintiff followed up again two days later inquiring as to when she may expect to
receive the results of the FOIA request. Pl.’s Hr’g Ex. 5.
11. On June 13, 2024, the USDA informed Plaintiff that the FOIA request was received.
Pl.’s Hr’g Ex. 6.
12. Eight days later, on June 21, 2024, the USDA sent Plaintiff a confirmation e-mail and
letter indicating that the response was received on April 10, 2024. Pl.’s Hr’g Exs. 7 &
8.
13. The letter stated Plaintiff’s request was placed in the complex track and that the USDA
“will have to coordinate with other offices to provide [Plaintiff] with a comprehensive
response[.]” Pl.’s Hr’g Ex. 8.
14. Plaintiff responded to the e-mail on June 25, 2024, indicating that she needed the
information for a July 1, 2024, hearing and requested the information be provided by
the upcoming Friday. Pl.’s Hr’g Ex. 9.
15. The documents were not provided by that Friday, and Plaintiff sent an e-mail on July
3, 2024, requesting the documents be provided by July 9, 2024. Pl.’s Hr’g. Ex. 10.
16. No response or documents were received by July 9, 2024, and Plaintiff sent another e-
mail indicating that she will be pursuing judicial intervention. Pl.’s Hr’g Ex. 11.
6:24-cv-00254-GLJ Document 62 Filed in ED/OK on 03/31/26 Page 3 of 10

-4-
17. On July 19, 2024, Plaintiff filed her Complaint in this action alleging Defendant
violated FOIA. Pl.’s Hr’g Ex. 18; Docket No. 2.
18. Defendant was served summons for this action on July 26, 2024, but the return of
service was not filed on this Court’s docket until February 5, 2026. Docket No. 61.
19. On July 24, 2024, Defendant e-mailed Plaintiff the documents responsive to her FOIA
request. Pl.’s Hr’g Ex. 13, at p. 1.
20. The provided documents consisted of worksheets titled “Multi-Family Information
System (MFIS) Project Worksheet.” Pl.’s Hr’g Ex. 13, at p. 2.
21. The worksheets contain nineteen columns, pertinent here are the columns titled: “Basic
Rent,” “GTC,” “NTC,” “Utl Alw,” and “RA Due Borr.” Pl.’s Hr’g Ex. 13, at pp. 2-25.
22. The only row of the worksheet that is not redacted contains information pertaining to
Plaintiff. Id.
23. The column “Basic Rent” lists Plaintiff’s standard rent for the month. Pl.’s Hr’g Ex. 15,
at pp. 1-2.
24. The column “GTC” lists the “Gross Tenant Contribution,” i.e., the amount owed by
Plaintiff inclusive of rent and utilities, based on a USDA formula that considers
Plaintiff’s income. Id. at p. 2.
25. 	The “Utl Alw” sets forth the utility allowance, subsidized by Defendant, for Plaintiff.
Id.
26. The “NTC” column is the “Net Tenant Contribution” as calculated by subtracting the
utility allowance from the gross tenant contribution. This is the amount Plaintiff is
required to pay each month in rent to Silver Leaf. Id.
6:24-cv-00254-GLJ Document 62 Filed in ED/OK on 03/31/26 Page 4 of 10

-5-
27. The “RA Due Borr” is the rental assistance due to the borrower, i.e., Silver Leaf, as
calculated by taking the difference between the Basic Rent and the NTC.2 Id.
28. The RA Due Borr column reflects what the USDA paid to Silver Leaf on Plaintiff’s
behalf for any given month.
29. The worksheet provided the above information for every month between August 2023
and July 2024, excluding June 2024. Pl.’s Hr’g Ex. 13.3
30. The MFIS worksheet is generated after the owner of the multi-family residence, in this
case Silver Leaf, electronically transmits information regarding a tenant’s income and
eligibility via the “Management Interface Network Connection.” Pl.’s Hr’g Ex. 17, at
p. 18; Waters Dep. 69:4-23
31. This information is transmitted electronically to MFIS and used to determine the rental
assistance owed to Silver Leaf for a particular month for a particular tenant. Pl.’s Hr’g
Ex. 17 at p. 18; Waters Dep. 70:8-15.
32. MFIS then generates a sum of all the individual tenants’ accounts and automatically
transfers this data to the automatic multi-family accounting system (“AMAS”), which
is overseen by the USDA’s national servicing office. Pl.’s Hr’g Ex. 17 at p. 19; Waters
Dep. 76:21-25, 77:19-23, & 79:9-24.
2 At trial Plaintiff testified, in response to the Court’s questioning, that the “RA Due Borr” category
reflected what she paid monthly in rent. Given Mr. Waters’ position in the USDA, the Court finds
his explanation as to what each category of the worksheet reflects more credible. See Pl.’s Hr’g
Ex. 15. To the extent Plaintiff claims that Silver Leaf was overcharging her for rent and utilities,
that is an issue beyond the scope of this lawsuit.
3 On June 3, 2025, the USDA provided a supplement which included “expanded search results.”
This appears to be the same worksheet that was provided on July 24, 2024, spanning the same set
of dates. Pl.’s Hr’g Ex. 14.
6:24-cv-00254-GLJ Document 62 Filed in ED/OK on 03/31/26 Page 5 of 10

-6-
33. Using this information, funds are sent to Silver Leaf for the sum total of rental assistance
subsidized considering all of Silver Leaf’s tenants. Pl.’s Hr’g Ex. 17, at p. 20; Waters
Dep. 79:1-24.
34. Byron Waters, the Regional Director of the Field Operations Division of the USDA,
Southern Region, received Plaintiff’s FOIA request around June 2024. Pl.’s Hr’g Ex.
17, at p. 10; Water’s Dep. 38:12-20.
35. Mr. Waters testified, based on the parameters of Plaintiff’s FOIA request, he and/or his
staff identified the project worksheets held in MFIS for the time period between August
2023 and April 2024 as the only responsive documents. Pl.’s Hr’g Ex. 16, at p. 21;
Waters Dep. 84:10-15.
36. No search terms were needed to identify the documents responsive to Plaintiff’s FOIA
request because, due to the nature of the request and Mr. Water’s experience, the MFIS
worksheet was the only responsive document as it retrieves the information pertaining
to the payments made to Silver Leaf by the USDA on Plaintiff’s behalf for a particular
month. Pl.’s Hr’g Ex. 19, at p. 22; Waters Dep. 85:3-25 & 86:1-21.
37. There is no information in the AMAS system that pertains specifically to Plaintiff as
the AMAS system aggregates the amount payable to Silver Leaf on behalf of all tenants.
Pl.’s Hr’g Ex. 19, at p. 20; Waters Dep. 78:5-6 & 79:1-24.
III. 	Conclusions of Law
1. 	This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1346.
2. 	Under FOIA, individuals are entitled to copies of a federal agency’s records “upon
making a request that ‘reasonably describes such records’ and that complies with
6:24-cv-00254-GLJ Document 62 Filed in ED/OK on 03/31/26 Page 6 of 10

-7-
required procedures for such requests.” Trentadue v. F.B.I., 572 F.3d 794, 796-97 (10th
Cir. 2009) (citing 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A)(i)).
3. 	Once a FOIA request is submitted, the agency must determine within “20 days
(excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) after the receipt of any such
request whether to comply with such request and shall immediately notify the person
making such request[.]” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i).
4. 	A plaintiff in a FOIA action must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that “an
agency has (1) ‘improperly’ (2) ‘withheld’ (3) ‘agency records.’” Kissinger v. Reps.
Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136, 137-38 (1980).
5. 	A FOIA claim becomes moot “[o]nce the government produces all the documents a
plaintiff requests[.]” Anderson v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 3 F.3d 1383,
1384 (10th Cir. 1993).
6. 	Once all requested documents are surrendered, “however fitful or delayed the release
of information under the FOIA[,]” . . . federal courts have no further statutory function
to perform.” Perry v. Block, 684 F.2d 121, 125 (D.C. Cir. 1982); Landmark Legal
Found. v. EPA, 272 F. Supp. 2d 59, 69 (D.D.C. July 24, 2003) (FOIA “does not provide
an after-the-fact remedy once documents have been released, however tardily.”).
7. 	In responding to a FOIA request, an agency’s search for records need “only be
‘reasonable’ in scope and intensity.” Trentadue, 572 F.3d at 797 (citing 5 U.S.C. § 552
(a)(3)(C)).
8. 	“The focal point of the judicial inquiry is the agency’s search process, not the outcome
of its search. ‘The issue is not whether any further documents might conceivably exist
6:24-cv-00254-GLJ Document 62 Filed in ED/OK on 03/31/26 Page 7 of 10

-8-
but rather whether the government’s search for responsive documents was adequate[.]’”
Trentadue, 572 F.3d at 799 (quoting Weisberg v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 705 F.2d 1344,
1351 (D.C. Cir. 1983)).
9. 	To establish reasonableness, agencies routinely rely on affidavits or declarations to
determine whether an agency has fulfilled its FOIA duties. Rocky Mountain Wild, Inc.
v. U.S. Forest Serv., 56 F.4th 913, 923 (10th Cir. 2022).
10. Generally, these affidavits must “set[] forth the search terms and the type of search
performed, and averring that all files likely to contain responsive materials . . . were
searched[.]” Oglesby v. U.S. Dep’t. of Army, 920 F.2d 57, 68 (D.C. Cir. 1990).
11. “An agency’s failure to find a specific document does not render a search inadequate
or unreasonable. Nor is it the agency’s job to conduct a ‘fishing expedition and comb
through every single file.’” US Right to Know v. Nat’l v. Nuclear Sec. Admin., 721 F.
Supp. 3d 1198, 1207 (D.N.M. Feb 29, 2024) (citing Dale v. IRS, 238 F. Supp. 3d 99,
105 (D.D.C. Nov. 20, 2002)).
12. Ultimately, “[t]he reasonableness of an agency’s search turns on ‘the likelihood that it
will yield the sought-after information, the existence of readily available alternatives,
and the burden of employing those alternatives.’” Trentadue, 572 F.3d at 799 (quoting
Davis v. Dep’t of Just., 460 F.2d 92, 105 (D.C. Cir. 2006)).
13. Although no search terms were utilized to identify the responsive documents, the Court
finds Defendant’s search for records was reasonable given the nature of Plaintiff’s
request, the USDA’s record-keeping practices, and the type of information stored on
the MFIS and AMAS systems.
6:24-cv-00254-GLJ Document 62 Filed in ED/OK on 03/31/26 Page 8 of 10

-9-
14. The Court finds Plaintiff fails to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that
Defendant improperly withheld agency records and conducted an inadequate search.
15. Thus, Judgment should be entered in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff.
16. Even so, a plaintiff in a FOIA action is eligible for an award of attorney’s fees, but only
where it is shown she has “substantially prevailed on her claim.” Anderson, 80 F.3d at
1504 (citing 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E)(i)).
17. “A complainant has substantially prevailed if the complainant has obtained relief
through either (i) a judicial order, or an enforceable written agreement or consent
decree; or (ii) a voluntary or unilateral change in position by the agency, if the
complainant’s claim is not insubstantial.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E)(ii).
18. To show she has “substantially prevailed” Plaintiff must show “the lawsuit was
reasonably necessary and substantially caused the requested records to be released.”
Gowan v. U.S. Dep’t of Air Force, 148 F.3d 1182, 1195 (10th Cir. 1998).
19. “[T]he mere filing of the complaint and the subsequent release of the documents is
insufficient to establish causation.” Cordrea v. ATF, 272 F. Supp. 3d 49, 53 (D.D.C.
2017) (quoting Weisberg v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 745 F.2d 1476, 1496 (D.C. Cir. 1984)).
20. “[T]he plaintiff has the burden of showing that it is more probable than not that the
government would not have performed the desired act absent the lawsuit.” Grand
Canyon Tr. v. Bernhardt, 948 F.3d 94, 97 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (internal quotations and
citations omitted).
21. The evidence reveals Defendant had begun processing Plaintiff’s request prior to the
initiation of this lawsuit, submitted the documents to Plaintiff prior to being served
6:24-cv-00254-GLJ Document 62 Filed in ED/OK on 03/31/26 Page 9 of 10

-10-
summons, and, although the records were untimely, Plaintiff set forth no evidence that
Defendant did not intend to produce the requested records.
22. Thus, the Court finds Plaintiff is not entitled to an award of attorney’s fees. See
WhiteCar v. U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., 2020 WL 13578381, at *4 (D. Wyo. May 12,
2020) (“In the absence of any indication by the VA that it did not intend to produce
Plaintiff’s medical records pursuant to the pending Privacy Act request, the Court
simply cannot conclude Plaintiff’s FOIA lawsuit was “necessary for [the] attainment of
the requested document.’”) (citing Grand Canyon Tr. v. Zinke, 311 F. Supp. 3d 381,
388 (D.D.C. 2018) (“[T]he evidence submitted by the plaintiff in support of its fee
motion makes clear that both the DOI-OS and BLM had begun processing the plaintiff’s
request well before this lawsuit was initiated and that both agencies had even made
partial releases to the plaintiff before the complaint was filed.”), aff’d sub nom. Grand
Canyon Tr. Berhardt, 948 F.3d 94 (D.C. Cir. 2020)).
23. Accordingly, the Court finds in favor of Defendant and finds Plaintiff is not entitled to
an award of fees.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judgment should be entered against Plaintiff
Brandy White and in favor of Defendant United States Department of Agriculture, Rural
Development Division.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 31st day of March, 2026.
GERALD L. JACKSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6:24-cv-00254-GLJ Document 62 Filed in ED/OK on 03/31/26 Page 10 of 10