Kovalevich v. BIA

Kovalevich v. BIA

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On March 9, 2018, pro se Plaintiff Sean Michael Kovalevich filed the instant lawsuit to obtain records from the Bureau of Indian Affairs ("the Bureau") in response to a document request that he had submitted under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552, and the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a. (See Compl., ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 18, 28.) During the course of the ensuing litigation, the Bureau released 83 responsive documents to Kovalevich, either in full or in part, while justifying its withholdings on the basis of FOIA Exemptions 6 and 7(C). (See Pl.'s Statement of Material Facts to Which There Is No Genuine Issue ("Pl.'s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts"), ECF No. 18, ¶¶ 10-12; Defs.' Statement of Material Facts to Which There Is No Genuine Issue ("Defs.' Statement of Undisputed Material Facts"), ECF No. 16-1, ¶¶ 3-4.) The Bureau now insists that it has fully complied with [*2]  its obligations under the FOIA, because it conducted an adequate search for responsive records, properly redacted or withheld personal information concerning third parties, and disclosed all non-exempt portions of responsive documents. (See Defs.' Opp'n to Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J. & Cross-Mot. for Summ. J. ("Defs.' Cross-Mot."), ECF No. 16, at 4-9.)¹ Kovalevich concedes that the Bureau has complied with its search and disclosure obligations, but maintains that the agency has violated the FOIA nevertheless, by attempting to assess search fees after failing to respond to his request in a timely manner, and also by engaging in a practice of ignoring FOIA requests and disregarding the statute's response deadlines. (See Pl.'s Opp'n to Defs.' Cross-Mot. for Summ. J. & Reply in Supp. of Pl.'s Mot. ("Pl.'s Combined Reply"), ECF No. 18, at 4-5.)

Kovalevich further argues that he is entitled to attorney's fees and costs, because his lawsuit caused the Bureau to release the requested records. (See id. at 6.) Before this Court at present are Kovalevich's Motion for Summary Judgment and the Bureau's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. (See Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J. ("Pl.'s Mot."), ECF No. 12; Defs.' [*3]  Cross-Mot.) For the reasons explained fully below, the Court has concluded that the Bureau has fully (and concededly) discharged its duties under the FOIA and that Kovalevich has failed to demonstrate his entitlement to any of his requests for relief. Therefore, the Bureau's motion must be GRANTED, and Kovalevich's motion must be DENIED. A separate Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion will follow.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.