Case No. VFA-0573, 27 DOE ¶ 80,276

May 16, 2000

DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Appeal

Name of Petitioner: David Ingwersen

Date of Filing: April 21, 2000

Case Number: VFA-0573

On April 21, 2000, David Ingwersen (the Appellant) filed an Appeal from a final determination that the Golden Field Office (GFO) of the Department of Energy (DOE) issued on March 30, 2000. That determination concerned a request for information the Appellant submitted pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, as implemented by the DOE in 10 C.F.R. Part 1004. In that determination, no documents were released to the Appellant. In his Appeal, the Appellant asserts that GFO’s search for records was inadequate. If granted, this Appeal would require GFO to conduct a further search.

Background

In a letter dated November 1, 1999, the Appellant requested information pertaining to “an invention submitted by Mr. A. Wallis Crane in 1977 to the Office of Energy Related Inventions for Evaluation.” Request Letter dated February 13, 2000, from David Ingwersen to George P. Lewett, Chief, Office of Energy-Related Inventions, Department of Commerce (Commerce). On March 30, 2000, GFO issued a determination stating that a thorough search was conducted, including records from Commerce, which previously administered the Energy-Related Inventions Program. Determination Letter dated March 30, 2000, from Frank M. Stewart, Manager, GFO, DOE, to David Ingwersen (Determination Letter). The Energy-Related Inventions Program is now named the Inventions and Innovations Program and managed by the DOE through the GFO. GFO received the Program’s files from Commerce approximately six months ago. Memorandum of Telephone Conversation dated May 2, 2000, between Janet R. H. Fishman, Attorney-Examiner, OHA, DOE, and Christopher Powers, GFO (May 2, 2000 Telephone Conversation Memorandum). The Determination Letter stated that the Inventions and Innovations Program’s files contain material from the late 1970s. However, nothing referring to Mr. Crane was found. Determination Letter.

On April 21, 2000, the Appellant filed this Appeal, alleging that GFO’s response is a “?sluff off’ attempt, knowing that there is no penalty for such behavior.” Appeal Letter received April 21, 2000, from David Ingwersen to Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA), DOE (Appeal Letter). The Appellant includes, with the Appeal, a copy of a “1984" letter

from Commerce indicating that Mr. A. Wallis Crane submitted an invention in 1977.(1) Id. at Item 1. The Appellant believes that GFO has acted in bad faith and made an incomplete search. Id.

Analysis

We have stated on numerous occasions that a FOIA request deserves a thorough and conscientious search for responsive documents, and we have not hesitated to remand a case where it is evident that the search conducted was in fact inadequate. See, e.g., Butler, Vines and Babb, P.L.L.C., 25 DOE ¶ 80,152 (1995). The FOIA, however, requires that a search be reasonable, not exhaustive. "[T]he standard of reasonableness which we apply to agency search procedures does not require absolute exhaustion of the files; instead, it requires a search reasonably calculated to uncover the sought materials." Miller v. Department of State, 779 F.2d 1378, 1384-85 (8th Cir. 1985); accord Weisberg v. Department of Justice, 745 F.2d 1476, 1485 (D.C. Cir. 1984). In cases such as these, "[t]he issue is not whether any further documents might conceivably exist but rather whether the government's search for responsive documents was adequate." Perry v. Block, 684 F.2d 121, 128 (D.C. Cir. 1982).

The Appellant is requesting “all information regarding an invention submitted by Mr. A. Wallis Crane in 1977.” Request Letter dated February 13, 2000, from David Ingwersen to George P. Lewett, Chief, Office of Energy-Related Inventions, Commerce. GFO’s FOIA Officer informed us that GFO searched both the hard files and the database containing the information which was transferred from Commerce to GFO regarding the Inventions and Innovations Program. In addition, the database containing the information regarding all GFO’s regular office files were searched. Telephone Conversation dated April 25, 2000, between Janet. R. H. Fishman, Attorney-Examiner, OHA, DOE, and Christopher Powers, FOIA Officer, GFO; Telephone Conversation dated May 11, 2000, between Janet. R. H. Fishman, Attorney-Examiner, OHA, DOE, and Christopher Powers, FOIA Officer, GFO. Also, GFO has checked the database(2) of its Inventions and Innovations Program files to verify its accuracy and found it to be correct. May 2, 2000 Telephone Conversation Memorandum. The files do contain some information that contains the date 1977, specifically applications for inventions. However, GFO is not sure whether the date indicates when the applications were submitted or when the inventions were invented. Id. In any event, no records responsive to the Appellants’ request were found. GFO has also informed us that it has not destroyed any records in the six months since they were received from Commerce. Id.

We are convinced that GFO followed procedures which were reasonably calculated to uncover the material the Appellant sought in his request. See Miller v. Department of State, 779 F.2d 1378, 1384-85 (8th Cir. 1985). The fact that the search did not uncover the documents that the Appellant believes may be in the possession of DOE does not mean that the search was inadequate. In the Appeal, the Appellant alleges that GFO did not see the information he was requesting on a computer screen and therefore claims it does not exist. Appeal Letter at 1. We have on numerous occasions found that a reasonable search of a computerized document tracking system, if that system covers all records that could possibly contain information responsive to the request, meets the standard for adequacy set forth in the law. See, e.g., Barbara Schwarz, 27 DOE ¶ 80,245 at 80,874 (1999). GFO has met this standard. Moreover, in this case, GFO went beyond checking the computer screen. GFO also confirmed that the database was accurate, checked its own files, and attempted to confirm with Commerce that GFO has all the records from the Program.(3) Id. Further, the “1984" letter from Commerce that the Appellant included with his Appeal merely confirms that the information he is requesting existed in 1984 at Commerce. The letter does not indicate that the requested information was still in existence when the Inventions and Innovations Program’s files were transferred to GFO some 15 years later.

Conclusion

GFO conducted a search reasonably calculated to uncover the material the Appellant sought in his request. GFO searched the database of the Inventions and Innovations Program and all of its archived files. Based on the above descriptions, we conclude that GFO’s search was reasonably calculated to uncover the records the Appellant sought. Therefore, we will deny the Appellant’s Appeal.

It Is Therefore Ordered That:

(1) The Appeal filed on April 21, 2000, by David Ingwersen, Case No. VFA-0573, is hereby denied.

(2) This is a final Order of the Department of Energy from which any aggrieved party may seek judicial review pursuant to the provision of 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B). Judicial review may be sought in the district where the requester resides or has a principal place of business or in which the agency records are situated or in the District of Columbia.

George B. Breznay

Director

Office of Hearings and Appeals

Date: May 16, 2000

(1)We note that the letter the Appellant includes with his Appeal is a copy with the date and address blanked out. It is the Appellant’s contention that this letter was written and/or received in 1984.

(2)It is our understanding that because both the database and the underlying files were received from Commerce, and GFO had no knowledge if the information was correct, it validated the accuracy of the database. This was accomplished by checking the database to see if it would respond correctly for information GFO knew that the files contained.

(3)GFO attempted to contact Commerce but determined that no one with any knowledge of the Energy- Related Inventions Program, as it was called at Commerce, remains with that Department. Memorandum of Telephone Message dated May 10, 2000, left by Christopher Powers, FOIA Officer, GFO.