Case No. VFA-0771

November 29, 2002

DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Appeal

Name of Appellant:Andrew T. Stahr

Date of Filing:August 19, 2002

Case Number: VFA-0771

Andrew T. Stahr (Stahr) filed this Appeal from a determination issued to him by the Oak Ridge Operations Office (OROO) of the Department of Energy (DOE). The determination responded to a request for information Stahr filed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, as implemented by the Department of Energy (DOE) at 10 C.F.R. Part 1004. In his Appeal, Stahr challenges the adequacy of OROO's search for documents responsive to his request.

I. Background

Stahr submitted a request to OROO for copies of x-rays taken of his father, David Stahr. David Stahr formerly worked at a Paducah, Kentucky, site that is under the jurisdiction of OROO. In his request, Stahr specified the date of each x-ray and the body area included in the x-ray.

OROO responded with a Determination Letter stating that it had conducted a search of the files at the Paducah Site Office and found no records responsive to Stahr’s request. Stahr appealed this determination.

II. Analysis

The FOIA generally requires federal agencies to release material to the public upon request. Following an appropriate request, agencies must search their records for responsive documents. We have often stated that a FOIA request deserves a thorough and conscientious search for responsive documents, and we have not hesitated to remand a case where we believe the search conducted was inadequate. E.g., Ashok K. Kaushal, 27 DOE ¶ 80,189 (1999); Hobart T. Bolin, Jr., 27 DOE ¶ 80,124 (1998).

In a case involving the adequacy of the agency's search, "the issue is not whether any further responsive documents might conceivably exist but rather whether the government's search for responsive documents was inadequate." Perry v. Block, 684 F.2d 121, 128 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (emphasis in original). To determine whether an agency's search was adequate, we therefore examine its actions under a "standard of reasonableness." McGehee v. CIA, 697 F.2d 1095, 1100-01, modified in part on rehearing, 711 F.2d 1076 (D.C. Cir. 1983). This standard "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). Furthermore, the determination of whether a search was reasonable is "dependent upon the circumstances of the case." Founding Church of Scientology v. National Security Agency, 610 F.2d 824, 834 (D.C. Cir. 1979).

In our review of Stahr's Appeal, we contacted personnel in the medical department of the Paducah Site Office, and spoke with a long-time employee of the medical records department who had been involved in the search for the x-rays. He recalled that a similar request for David Stahr’s x-rays had been filed about twenty-five years earlier. The x-rays had not been found at that time, and the employee remembers being told that a member of David Stahr’s family had checked out the x-rays in the early 1970's, and the x-rays were never returned.

III. Conclusion

We believe that OROO conducted a search that was reasonably calculated to find the x-rays requested by Stahr. Moreover, based on the information provided by the employee in the medical records department, we have no reason to believe that a further search would locate responsive records. We will therefore deny this Appeal.

It Is Therefore Ordered That:

(1) The Appeal filed by Andrew T. Stahr, Case No. VFA-0763, 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 provisions of 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B). Judicial review may be sought in the district in which 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: November 29, 2002