📧 to CRD re. Narrowing Letter
Re: Response to Narrowing Letter — FOIA/PA No. 26-00351-F
To Whom It May Concern:
I write in response to the Civil Rights Division's letter of April 14, 2026 (FOI/PA No. 26-00351-F), which invited me to narrow my March 19, 2026 FOIA request. With respect, I submit that no narrowing is required, and I ask that the Division clarify the precise basis for its burden claim.
My request already identifies a single federal criminal statute — 18 U.S.C. § 1389, enacted as Section 4712 of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 — and limits responsive records to a defined time window: November 1, 2009 to the present. The request seeks only complaints, reports, or referrals alleging violations of that statute. This is not a request for all records of a senior official, all communications on a broad subject matter, or any other category the Division's cited precedents were designed to address. See AFGE v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce, 907 F.2d 203 (D.C. Cir. 1990); Power the Future v. White House Council on Environmental Quality, 2025 WL 2206947 (D.D.C. Aug. 4, 2025). Those cases involved expansive subject-matter requests; a single-statute enforcement query is categorically different.
I therefore ask the Division to clarify, in writing, which of the following conditions describes the actual situation:
- The Division has identified a large volume of responsive records and the post-search burden of review and redaction is unreasonable given that volume; or
- The Division's search systems are not organized in a manner that permits efficient retrieval of records by statute cited; or
- A search has been or would be conducted and is unlikely to return responsive records, such that a no-records determination would be appropriate.
These are legally and practically distinct situations. Option (1) would require some showing of actual volume to justify a burden claim against a single-statute request. Option (2) raises questions about agency search obligations that cannot be discharged simply by asking the requester to narrow further. Option (3) — a no-records determination — is itself a proper and complete response under FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A), and I would accept it as such.
I am not asking the Division to conduct a fishing expedition. I am asking whether 18 U.S.C. § 1389 — a statute that has been in force for over sixteen years — has generated any enforcement activity recorded in agency files. That is a narrow, answerable question. If the answer is that no such records exist, I respectfully request that the Division say so formally.
I am available to discuss this matter at the Division's convenience and can be reached at the contact information below. Please reference FOIA/PA No. 26-00351-F in all correspondence.
