Order – Mem Opinion Granting Def SJM 1759 (7-3-2015)
Number of Pages:23
Date Created:July 24, 2015
Date Uploaded to the Library:July 24, 2015
Autogenerated text from PDF
Case 1:13-cv-01759-EGS Document Filed 07/03/15 Page UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT COLUMBIA ________________________________ JUDICIAL WATCH, INC., Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 13-1759 (EGS) INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendant. ________________________________) MEMORANDUM OPINION Judicial Watch requested information from the Internal Revenue Service IRS under the Freedom Information Act FOIA U.S.C. 552. The IRS conducted what considers have been reasonable search response that request, but found responsive records. The IRS therefore moves for summary judgment, arguing that has discharged its FOIA responsibilities. Judicial Watch opposes this motion and proposes ways which the IRS could have conducted more appropriate search. Upon consideration the motion, the response and reply thereto, the applicable law, and the entire record, the Court GRANTS the motion for summary judgment. Background The May 22, 2013 FOIA Request and this Lawsuit. May 22, 2013, Judicial Watch submitted the IRS FOIA request for: Case 1:13-cv-01759-EGS Document Filed 07/03/15 Page Any and all records and communications concerning, regarding, related the selection individuals for audit based information contained 501(c)(4) tax exempt applications. Compl., ECF No. The time frame the request was identified being January 2010 the present. Id. June 25, 2013, the IRS acknowledged that had received the request and advised that would unable finish processing the request time and therefore had extended the response date August 16, 2013. Id. August 13, 2013 letter from the IRS indicated that the IRS required additional time and would contact Judicial Watch September 27, 2013 remained unable complete processing the request. See id. Having received further response, Judicial Watch filed suit November 2013. See id. After the case was filed, the parties submitted series status reports. See Meet and Confer Report, ECF No. 11; Status Report, ECF No. 12. August 2014, they filed joint status report indicating that the IRS believed that had conducted reasonable search which did not locate any responsive records, while Judicial Watch felt that there genuine issue material fact regarding whether the Service has satisfied its obligations. Status Report, ECF No. the parties request, the Court set schedule for the briefing motion for summary judgment. See Minute Order August 2014. Case 1:13-cv-01759-EGS Document Filed 07/03/15 Page September 22, 2014, the IRS filed its motion for summary judgment. See Mot. for Summ. Mot. ECF No. 19. The IRS also submitted statement facts support that motion. See IRS Statement Facts Def. SMF ECF No. 19-1. October 22, 2014, Judicial Watch filed its opposition the motion for summary judgment along with response the IRS statement facts. See Opp. Mot. Opp. ECF No. 20; Judicial Watch Statement Facts Pl. SMF ECF No. 20-1. November 21, 2014, the IRS filed reply brief, along with brief response Judicial Watch statement facts. See Reply Supp. Mot. Reply ECF No. 23; IRS Reply SMF, ECF No. 23-1. The IRS motion ripe for adjudication. Organization the IRS. understand the search conducted the IRS response Judicial Watch FOIA request, necessary describe the structure the IRS. The IRS mainly organized around four distinct operating divisions. Def. SMF Pl. SMF These divisions are: (1) the Wage and Investment Division, which serves individual taxpayers with wage and investment income only (2) the Small Business/Self-Employed Division, which focuses taxpayers that are either small businesses self-employed; (3) the Large Mid-Size Business Division, which works with corporations with assets greater than $10 million well business and individuals with certain international Case 1:13-cv-01759-EGS Document Filed 07/03/15 Page focuses; and (4) the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division, which serves three distinct taxpayer segments: Employee Plans, Exempt Organizations, and Government Entities. Def. SMF Pl. SMF All applications for tax exempt status under Section 501(c)(4), are processed the Rulings and Agreements Office within the Exempt Organizations Unit [the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division]. Def. SMF Pl. SMF The Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division does not conduct any audits individuals, however. See Def. SMF Pl. SMF Individual audits are conducted one the three other divisions. See Def. SMF 10; Pl. SMF 10. Naturally, then, information 501(c)(4) application caused the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division think that individual audit was warranted, the Division would need refer the individual another division for such audit. See Def. SMF 35, 50, 68, 86; Declaration Dagoberto Gonzalez Gonzalez Decl. ECF No. 19-3 Declaration David Horton Horton Decl. ECF No. 19-4 Declaration Cheryl Claybough Claybough Decl. ECF No. 19-5 Declaration Karen Schiller Schiller Decl. ECF No. 19-6 The IRS Search for Records. keeping with Judicial Watch request for [a]ny and all records and communications concerning, regarding, related Case 1:13-cv-01759-EGS Document Filed 07/03/15 Page the selection individuals for audit based information contained 501(c)(4) tax exempt applications, Compl., ECF No. the IRS began its search discerning whether any individuals ever were selected for audit based upon information application for tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(4). The IRS began with the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division the recipient and reviewer all applications under Section 501(c)(4) searching for records the recordkeeping systems for examination referrals maintained the Exempt Organizations Unit, which would contain all referrals arising from records organizations that have applied for tax exempt status. Def. SMF 18-21; Declaration Tamera Ripperda Ripperda Decl. ECF No. 19-2 The IRS retrieved from this recordkeeping system list all referrals arising out applications for tax-exempt status, reviewed that list manually identify all taxpayer names that were not clearly organizations (creating list potential individuals), and finally obtained and reviewed the referral documentation for these individuals determine any referral arose from information contained application under [Section 501(c)(4)]. Def. SMF 21-24; Ripperda Decl. referrals any individual for audit due information contained such application were found. See Def. SMF 19, 25; Ripperda Decl. Case 1:13-cv-01759-EGS Document Filed 07/03/15 Page Having found that the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division had record ever referring individual for audit based upon information contained 501(c)(4) application, the IRS then conducted searches records within the other three divisions. These searches confirmed the lack records regarding any such referral during the relevant time period. See Def. SMF 42, 58, 75, 130; Gonzalez Decl. Horton Decl. Claybough Decl. Schiller Decl. Wage and Investment Division: Because the Wage and Investment Division would not have received 501(c)(4) applications directly, the IRS searched this division records for any referrals from the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division. Such referrals would have been sent the Wage and Investment Division Compliance Office. See Def. SMF 36; Gonzalez Decl. The Wage and Investment Division records [a]ll cases individual audits opened based upon referral from another business unit the Audit Information Management System. See Def. SMF 37; Gonzalez Decl. search the Audit Information Management System for any audits based upon referrals during the relevant timeframe revealed only audits that concerned tip income received casino employees. Def. SMF 41; Gonzalez Decl. Small Business/Self-Employed Division: Three offices within this division may audit individual: Campus Compliance Case 1:13-cv-01759-EGS Document Filed 07/03/15 Page Services, Specialty Programs, and Examination Field. See Def. SMF 87; Schiller Decl. Because this division would not receive 501(c)(4) applications directly, the IRS searched for instances which these offices received referrals individuals for audit from the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division. See Def. SMF 88; Schiller Decl. the Campus Compliance Services office, all audit referrals are recorded the Audit Information Management System. See Def. SMF 89; Schiller Decl. search this system for any audit individual arising from referral from [the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division] during the relevant period revealed that [n]o project code specifically identifying referrals from [that division] has been used the last years and that open closed cases had project codes indicating connection [that division matters. See Def. SMF 93; Schiller Decl. the Specialty Programs office, different units record their audit referrals different ways (the Excise Tax Unit recording the Specialist Referral System; the Estate and Gift Tax Unit tracking referrals spreadsheet; and the Employment Tax Unit through computerized listing open and closed examinations See Def. SMF 98, 100, 105; Schiller Decl. manual review these systems revealed: (1) that the Excise Tax Unit system contained referrals Case 1:13-cv-01759-EGS Document Filed 07/03/15 Page individuals from the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division; (2) that the Estate and Gift Tax Unit spreadsheet recorded audits referred the Tax Exempt and Government Entities division, but the referrals all arose out information the organization annual tax return, not 501(c)(4) application; and (3) that the Employment Tax Unit list included open audits referred the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division and that many closed audits were associated with miscellaneous code that did not identify which division referred them, but that obtaining more information would require several months and significant amount time conduct manual review. See Def. SMF 99, 101 04, 106-12; Schiller Decl. 7.1 the Examination Field, audit referrals are processed seven different offices. See Def. SMF 116; Schiller Decl. One these offices maintains copies all referrals sent it, conducted manual review all the referrals received during the relevant time period, and found The Employment Tax Unit also proffers that unlikely that these closed audits were referred the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division because the Unit rarely receives referrals from that division, has open audits that were referred that division, and [t]he employee who receives and reviews all referrals Employment Tax, and who has been this position for years had recollection ever seeing referral from [the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division] arising from information 501(c)(4) application]. Def. SMF 113 14; Schiller Decl. Case 1:13-cv-01759-EGS Document Filed 07/03/15 Page referrals individuals received from [the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division] based information contained 501(c)(4) application]. Def. SMF 117-19; Schiller Decl. The other offices maintain electronic spreadsheets all referrals. See Def. SMF 120; Schiller Decl. Two these spreadsheets record the source the referral, and review these spreadsheets identified referrals from the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division based information 501(c)(4) application. See Def. SMF 121; Schiller Decl. the other four, each office contacted the Exam Group Manager responsible for each open examination that was based referral and was pending February 2014 and asked whether the referral came from the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division and, so, whether was based upon information 501(c)(4) application. See Def. SMF 122; Schiller Decl. such cases were identified. See Def. SMF 122; Schiller Decl. 8.2 Large and Mid-Size Business Division: Outside individual audits based upon preexisting audits corporations For closed audits those four offices, the only way obtain information the source the referral would take months and involve many hours review, and would unlikely succeed open audits exist that meet the same criteria, the offices that track closed audits had none that meet the relevant criteria, and group managers the offices not remember any referrals that would meet the criteria. See Def. SMF 123 29; Schiller Decl. Case 1:13-cv-01759-EGS Document Filed 07/03/15 Page partnerships, only two offices within this division have the authority commence audit individual: the International Individual Compliance Function and the Global High Wealth Function. See Def. SMF 48; Horton Decl. n.1. Because this division would not receive 501(c)(4) application directly, the IRS searched for instances which either office received referrals individuals for audit from the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division. See Def. SMF 50, 68; Horton Decl. Claybough Decl. the International Individual Compliance Function, the IRS searched the audit-tracking database the Planning and Special Programs Office, which the office which all referrals would have been sent. See Def. SMF 55; Horton Decl. That search revealed list all cases referred the office, and manual review the list and information pertaining each entity the list revealed that only one referral came from [the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division referral that related pension distribution. Def. SMF 57; Horton Decl. the Global High Wealth Industry Group, all audit referrals are recorded database. See Def. SMF 70; Claybough Decl. search that database revealed that only one referral for audit had come from the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division during the relevant time period, Case 1:13-cv-01759-EGS Document Filed 07/03/15 Page and that dealt with defined retirement plan. Def. SMF 75; Claybough Decl. Based upon these searches, the IRS concluded that audit referrals individuals had been made during the relevant time period based upon any information contained 501(c)(4) application. The IRS Supplemental Searches. November 2014, response concerns raised Judicial Watch opposition the IRS motion for summary judgment, the IRS conducted supplemental search for internal directives and guidelines regarding the selection individuals for audit based 501(c)(4) applications. Def. Reply SMF The Director the Exempt Organizations Unit the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division indicated that [a]ny such documents would generally located the IRS [Tax Exempt and Government Entities] intranet website sections the Internal Revenue Manual applicable [the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division]. Second Declaration Tamera Ripperda Second Ripperda Decl. ECF No. 23-2 Ms. Ripperda directed review the guidance, resources, and reference materials maintained the intranet website for any material pertaining referrals individuals for audit based information [501(c)(4)] applications. Id. Case 1:13-cv-01759-EGS Document Filed 07/03/15 Page Although the search located documents related the referral for audit entities that have applied for recognition [under Section 501(c)(4)], located documents relating referring individuals for audit based information [501(c)(4)] applications. Id. (emphasis original). The search also involved review sections the Internal Revenue Manual applicable the division, but that review located provisions that specifically address referrals individuals based information contained [501(c)(4)] applications. Id. Finally, the IRS contacted all senior managers the unit that processes 501(c)(4) applications and those with oversight responsibilities for audit selection and/or referrals attempt determine they have any recollection any internal directives guidance during the relevant period. Id. None these individuals had any memory any internal directives guidance related referring individuals for audit based information contained [501(c)(4)] applications. Id. II. Summary Judgment FOIA Case Summary judgment granted when there genuine issue material fact and the movant entitled judgment matter law. Fed. Civ. 56; Celotex Corp. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986); Waterhouse District Columbia, 298 F.3d 989, 991 (D.C. Cir. 2002). determining whether genuine Case 1:13-cv-01759-EGS Document Filed 07/03/15 Page issue fact exists, the court must view all facts the light most favorable the non-moving party. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). Under FOIA, all underlying facts and inferences are analyzed the light most favorable the FOIA requester; such, only after agency proves that has fully discharged its FOIA obligations summary judgment appropriate. Moore Aspin, 916 Supp. 32, (D.D.C. 1996) (citing Weisberg U.S. Dept Justice, 705 F.2d 1344, 1350 (D.C. Cir. 1983)). FOIA cases typically and appropriately are decided motions for summary judgment. Gold Anti-Trust Action Comm. Bd. Governors Fed. Reserve Sys., 762 Supp. 123, 130 (D.D.C. 2011) (quotation marks omitted). considering motion for summary judgment under FOIA, the court must conduct novo review the record. See U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B). The court may award summary judgment the basis information provided the agency affidavits. See Military Audit Project Casey, 656 F.2d 724, 738 (D.C. Cir. 1981); Vaughn Rosen, 484 F.2d 820, 826-28 (D.C. Cir. 1973). Agency affidavits must relatively detailed and nonconclusory. SafeCard Servs. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197, 1200 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (quotation marks omitted). Such affidavits are accorded presumption good faith, which cannot rebutted purely speculative claims about the existence and Case 1:13-cv-01759-EGS Document Filed 07/03/15 Page discoverability other documents. Id. (quotation marks omitted). III. Analysis The IRS motion based entirely upon its claim have conducted adequate search response Judicial Watch FOIA request. Because the IRS uncovered responsive records during that search, finding that the search was adequate would end this case. Law Regarding the Adequacy Search. The standard for assessing the adequacy agency search response FOIA request familiar one: prevail motion for summary judgment regarding the adequacy search, agency must show beyond material doubt that has conducted search reasonably calculated uncover all relevant documents. The issue not whether any further documents might conceivably exist but rather whether the government search for responsive documents was adequate. The standard one reasonableness, and dependent upon the circumstances the case. establish the adequacy its search, agency may rely affidavits and declarations which are relatively detailed and nonconclusory and submitted good faith. Shurtleff U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 991 Supp. (D.D.C. 2013) (quoting Weisberg, 705 F.2d 1351) (alterations original). There requirement that agency search every record system, but the agency cannot limit its search only one record system there are others that are likely turn the information requested. Oglesby Case 1:13-cv-01759-EGS Document Filed 07/03/15 Page U.S. Dep Army, 920 F.2d 57, (D.C. Cir. 1990). Additionally, the mere speculation that yet uncovered documents may exist does not undermine the finding that the agency conducted reasonable search for them. DeSilva U.S. Dep Hous. Urb. Dev., Supp. 65, (D.D.C. 2014) (quoting SafeCard, 926 F.2d 1201) (alteration omitted). Consistent with the need for reasonable search, the cost burden potential search also factor evaluating whether the search conducted was adequate. FOIA was not intended reduce government agencies full-time investigators behalf requesters. Cunningham U.S. Dep Justice, Supp. 71, (D.D.C. 2014) (quoting Judicial Watch Export-Import Bank, 108 Supp. 19, (D.D.C. 2000)). For that reason, agency not required undertake search that broad unduly burdensome. Id. (citing Nation Magazine U.S. Customs Serv., F.3d 885, 891 (D.C. Cir. 1995)); see also Freedom Watch CIA, 895 Supp. 221, 228 (D.D.C. 2012) agency need not honor FOIA request that requires unreasonably burdensome search. (quotation marks and alteration omitted). costly and timeconsuming search with minimal chance revealing responsive records may not necessary. See, e.g., Ancient Coin Collectors Guild U.S. Dep State, 866 Supp. 28, (D.D.C. 2012) (search was adequate despite agency failure search Case 1:13-cv-01759-EGS Document Filed 07/03/15 Page backup recordings where the cost would prohibitive and the likelihood uncovering responsive information was low); Schrecker Dep Justice, 217 Supp. 29, (D.D.C. 2002) [T]o require agency hand search through millions documents not reasonable and therefore not necessary, agency already had searched the most likely place responsive documents would located. aff 349 F.3d 657 (D.C. Cir. 2003). Judicial Watch Largely Conceded that the IRS Initial Search Was Sufficient Show that Referrals Individuals for Audits Took Place. The IRS asserted its motion that its various searches fully discharged its responsibilities under FOIA because determining that the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division had not referred any individual for audit based upon information contained 501(c)(4) application, the IRS could reasonably conclude that records exist that are responsive Judicial Watch request. See Mot. 14-19. Judicial Watch did not controvert these assertions directly; rather, expressed suspicion this finding, implying that communications, informal referrals, guidelines must exist. This suspicion raises three issues: (1) whether the IRS explanation its audit-referral process its search records regarding that process may inaccurate incomplete; (2) whether the IRS needed search for internal directives, memorandums, meeting Case 1:13-cv-01759-EGS Document Filed 07/03/15 Page notes, agendas, etc that might also responsive, Opp. and (3) whether the IRS was required conduct searches obtain communications discussions about using 501(c)(4) tax exempt applications for audit referrals generally. Id. the first issue, Judicial Watch bases its suspicion that referrals nonetheless occurred handful concerns. Judicial Watch has allegedly learned connection with different FOIA request that IRS officials communicated with the Department Justice about criminally prosecuting signers applications for 501(c)(4) tax exempt status based allegedly false information contained applications. Pl. SMF How that bears whether the IRS referred individuals internally for audit based information contained 501(c)(4) application entirely unexplained. Judicial Watch also claims that IRS official acknowledged that donor lists generally were neither needed nor used making determinations tax exempt status, but the IRS required certain applicants for 501(c)(4) tax exempt status submit lists donors their organizations part the application process, and nearly one ten donors identified such donor lists were subject audit. Id. The IRS asserts that even assuming this evidence admissible, proving that individuals who happened listed 501(c)(4) donor lists were selected for audit would not demonstrate that the IRS selected the Case 1:13-cv-01759-EGS Document Filed 07/03/15 Page individual for audit based upon her presence such list. See Reply Donor lists, moreover, are submitted the IRS for other purposes, meaningless that they may have been received IRS officials. See id. Any correlation between name donor list and audit cannot, without more, overcome the presumption that the IRS detailed explanation its audit-referral processes and its search thereof was complete and correct determining that responsive referrals occurred during the relevant time period. Accordingly, Judicial Watch indirect attack the IRS search all locations which record referral individual for audit based upon information gleaned from 501(c)(4) application rejected, and Judicial Watch failed directly challenge cast doubt the adequacy the search recounted the IRS motion. The IRS Supplemental Search for Guidance Directives Was Adequate. The second issue raised Judicial Watch the possible existence internal guidance regarding the use 501(c)(4) application information prompt individual audits. Although the IRS may not have been required search for such records because its searches the records various divisions concluded that such referrals had been made, the Court need not address this issue because the IRS conducted search for Case 1:13-cv-01759-EGS Document Filed 07/03/15 Page such documents.3 The Court accepts the good faith and detailed declaration the Director the Exempt Organizations Unit the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division, who stated that any guidance similar records would either the Division intranet website would found applicable sections the Internal Revenue Manual. Second Ripperda Decl. Ms. Ripperda directed review the various materials that portion the intranet website, well the relevant sections the Internal Revenue Manual, but the search uncovered nothing regarding the referral individuals. Id. Ms. Ripperda also oversaw survey senior managers the units that process 501(c)(4) applications and that oversee audit selections and referrals. See id. one could recall the existence any internal directives guidance related referring individuals for audit based information contained [501(c)(4)] applications. Id. The IRS therefore determined that such guidance materials exist. Absent any reason doubt the declaration which accorded presumption good Judicial Watch has not challenged the IRS submission supplemental materials regarding additional search conducted while summary-judgment briefing was ongoing. The Court presumes that Judicial Watch silence neither seeking file surreply nor otherwise asking the Court for relief means that has objection the Court consideration these supplemental materials. See DeSilva, Supp. (citing Judicial Watch FDA, 514 Supp. 84, n.1 (D.D.C. 2007); Vest Dep Air Force, 793 Supp. 103, 121 (D.D.C. 2011)). Case 1:13-cv-01759-EGS Document Filed 07/03/15 Page faith, see SafeCard, 926 F.2d 1200 the Court finds that the IRS identified all record-keeping systems that might contain the guidance documents sought Judicial Watch and searched them thoroughly. The IRS Need Not Search for Communications because Reasonably Concluded that Relevant Referrals Had Occurred and Further Searches Would Unduly Burdensome. The IRS argues that its findings that there are neither official directives nor guidance regarding the use information Section 501(c)(4) application and that individual audit referrals took place based upon information gleaned from Section 501(c)(4) application make unnecessary search for further documents, including communications, the subject. See Reply The IRS has also indicated that any search the email accounts its employees for communications that might pertain decision select not select individual for audit based upon information 501(c)(4) application would require the search approximately 16,000 employee email accounts (of individuals 442 different cities), between individuals who worked offices that process 501(c)(4) applications, those who conduct individual audits, and those who have policy-making authority over audit decisions. See Declaration Elise Hellmuth Hellmuth Decl. ECF No. 23-4 Judicial Watch correct that the IRS has central server for the storage employee emails, but that server has Case 1:13-cv-01759-EGS Document Filed 07/03/15 Page approximate limit 6,000 emails per employee any email over that limit may archived and saved locally. See Declaration Neguiel Hicks Judicial Watch IRS, No. 14-1039, Ex. Pl. Opp. (hereinafter Hicks Decl. These archived emails would solely control the individual employee wherever she may located. See id. the declaration relied upon Judicial Watch notes, there method for the IRS search these locally saved emails for 16,000 employees, the IRS would need collect files from each employee individually. See id. 10. The declaration relied upon Judicial Watch was filed case which approximately 2,200 employees would have been implicated; there, the estimate was that few years would have been needed respond, using multiple full-time employees. See id. 27. The burden here would greater. The IRS argues that this incredible burden especially undue because the unlikelihood that anything responsive would uncovered. The IRS other searches establish and Judicial Watch evidence has not controverted that individuals were referred for audit based upon information gleaned from Section 501(c)(4) application. Therefore, speculation best say that there exist communications discussing decisions audit individual based upon 501(c)(4) applications. And well-established that agency not required expend its Case 1:13-cv-01759-EGS Document Filed 07/03/15 Page limited resources searches for which clear the outset that search would produce the records sought. Cunningham, Supp. 83. Even there were small likelihood success, the Court, according the IRS affidavits the appropriate presumption good faith, finds that the IRS has established very significant burden that would render Judicial Watch proposed search unreasonable. See, e.g., Wolf CIA, 569 Supp. (D.D.C. 2008) (search microfilm files that would take estimated 3,675 hours and cost $147,000 was unreasonably burdensome, especially light the fact that responsive films might not exist); People for the Am. Way U.S. Dep Justice, 451 Supp. (D.D.C. 2006) (searching 44,000 files manually and expending least 25,000 hours work would unduly burdensome).4 Judicial Watch also appeared seek broaden its initial FOIA request that would uncover communications that may pertain decisions not audit individuals based information contained 501(c)(4) application. See Opp. The initial request was for [a]ny and all records and communications concerning, regarding, related the selection individuals for audit based information contained 501(c)(4) tax exempt applications. Compl., ECF No. The IRS correctly notes that the phrase selection individuals for audit most naturally reads describing those situations which individual was chosen audited; not include decisions not audit particular individual. See Reply 17. Nor does the use the broadening words concerning, regarding, related transform the request into one for any records related any way information 501(c)(4) application and decisions not audit particular individual. Such reading, moreover, would begin render Judicial Watch request unduly vague. Cf. Sack CIA, Case 1:13-cv-01759-EGS Document Filed 07/03/15 Page IV. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the IRS motion for summary judgment. appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. Signed: Emmet Sullivan United States District Judge July 2015 Supp. 154, 164 (D.D.C. 2014) (use the phrase pertaining whole part rendered FOIA request unduly vague record may pertain something without specifically mentioning it, making impossible for the responding agency know what actually sought).