Under federal law, an agency must show it conducted a reasonable search, one reasonably calculated to locate records responsive to a request, and the agency carries that burden. Agencies typically meet it with detailed declarations listing the systems searched, the search terms used, the custodians contacted, and the cut off date applied. A search does not need to be exhaustive or perfect. It needs to be reasonable given what the agency knew and where responsive records were likely to be.
TL;DR:
- A strong request names likely custodians, a clear date range, record types, preferred format, and suggested search terms, rather than asking questions.
- Check whether the declaration identifies systems, search terms, custodians, dates, and methods; request a detailed affidavit if it offers only broad assurances.
- File an administrative appeal within 90 days of a final adverse decision; agencies generally have 20 working days to decide, absent unusual circumstances.
- Courts give detailed agency declarations a presumption of good faith, but records naming an unsearched database or custodian can rebut it.
- A processing start date often passes court review, but records created or surfaced before processing ended can support a challenge to the cutoff.
Table of Contents
- The FOIA Statute and What Agencies Must Actually Do
- How Courts Decide Whether a Search Was Adequate
- Reading an Agency’s Search Declaration
- Appealing and Litigating an Inadequate Search
- Drafting Requests That Avoid Search Disputes Later
- How We Evaluate Search Adequacy for Our Clients
- Choosing Between an Appeal and a Lawsuit
- Get Help With a FOIA Appeal or Lawsuit
- FAQ
- Sources
The FOIA Statute and What Agencies Must Actually Do
The Freedom of Information Act requires federal agencies to make records available on request unless a specific exemption applies, and that duty rests on the agency conducting a genuine search for responsive material. The statute defines “search” broadly: it includes manual review of files as well as automated or electronic review, and agencies are expected to make reasonable efforts to search for records in whatever electronic form or format they are kept, unless doing so would significantly interfere with the operation of the agency’s information system. That language matters because it forecloses an agency’s option to limit a search to paper files when the records in question live in a database, an email archive, or a case management system.
Timing and fees intersect with search scope in ways that shape how agencies behave. An agency generally has 20 working days to respond to a request, though unusual circumstances can extend that period, and fee category determines how much searching an agency will do before pausing to ask for payment authorization. A requester classified as a commercial user faces search and duplication fees from the outset, while a request from a representative of the news media or an educational institution may face only duplication charges after a free allotment. These categories affect how aggressively an agency searches, because an agency facing fee limits will sometimes stop short of a full search until a requester confirms willingness to pay.
What the statute and its implementing guidance say about what a “search” must cover:
- Manual review of paper files and automated or electronic review of databases both count as a search.
- Agencies must search records in the form or format requested when reasonably possible, including native electronic formats.
- The search obligation runs to all locations where responsive records are likely to exist, not just the first system an officer checks.
- Agencies are not required to create new records or to answer questions that call for analysis rather than document retrieval.
That last point trips up a lot of requesters. FOIA.gov’s guidance is direct about this: the statute compels agencies to produce existing records, not to research a topic or generate a report that does not already exist. A request phrased as a question rather than a description of records often draws a weaker response simply because the agency cannot locate “records” when the request does not identify any.
How Courts Decide Whether a Search Was Adequate
The controlling legal test did not originate in a single case so much as it crystallized across a line of decisions that still define the standard today. The Department of Justice’s Office of Information Policy summarizes the rule this way: an agency must show beyond material doubt that its search was reasonably calculated to uncover all responsive records, and the search need not be perfect, only reasonable under the circumstances.
A few decisions do the heavy lifting in nearly every adequacy dispute:
- Weisberg v. U.S. Department of Justice established that adequacy turns on the reasonableness of the search effort, not on whether every possible responsive document was actually found.
- Oglesby v. U.S. Department of the Army is cited for the principle that an agency’s affidavit must be relatively detailed and nonconclusory, describing what was searched and how, rather than offering a bare assertion that “a search was conducted.”
- Truitt v. Department of State reinforced that an agency cannot limit its search to one office or division when it has reason to believe responsive records exist elsewhere in the agency.
- Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and the broader Reporters Committee line of cases shaped how courts weigh the public interest in disclosure against an agency’s characterization of its own search effort.
- Valencia-Lucena v. U.S. Coast Guard is a frequently cited D.C. Circuit decision holding that an agency’s duty to search is triggered by what it learns during the search itself, meaning new leads uncovered mid search can expand where the agency must look.
- More recent D.D.C. decisions, including litigation involving Finders Keepers USA LLC, show courts still wrestling with cut off date reasonableness and whether an agency searched every system that plausibly held responsive files.
A search survives summary judgment when the agency’s declaration is detailed and nonconclusory and the requester offers nothing but speculation to counter it. That single evidentiary rule decides most FOIA search disputes before they reach trial, because FOIA litigation is resolved almost entirely on paper through summary judgment motions rather than live testimony.
Courts extend agencies a presumption of good faith when they submit such declarations, under the adequacy of search standard that DOJ’s guidance describes. That presumption is not irrebuttable. A requester can defeat it by producing specific, non-speculative evidence that the agency’s account is incomplete: internal agency documents referencing a system the declaration never mentions, contradictory public statements, or evidence that responsive records existed in a location the agency never searched.
In practice, outcomes split into two camps. Searches get upheld when the agency’s affidavit walks through its filing structure, names the databases queried, lists search terms, and identifies the officials or offices contacted, even if the search ultimately produced only a handful of records or none at all. Searches get remanded, or agencies get ordered to supplement their declarations, when the affidavit is vague about methodology, omits an obvious records system, or when the requester produces something concrete that contradicts the agency’s story, such as a document referencing a database the agency claims it never checked.
Reading an Agency’s Search Declaration
Once litigation starts, the agency’s declaration (sometimes called an affidavit) becomes the central piece of evidence, and knowing what it should contain lets a requester spot weaknesses fast. Courts expect these declarations to include:
- The specific search terms used, not a general description like “we searched for responsive material.”
- The systems and databases queried, named specifically rather than referenced as “relevant files.”
- The custodians or offices contacted, identified by role or division so a reader can judge whether the agency searched the right people.
- The search dates and cut off date, with an explanation of why that cut off was chosen.
- The methodology used, including whether the search was automated, manual, or both, and who performed it.
When an agency withholds responsive material it does locate, it typically must justify each withholding through a Vaughn index, a document that itemizes withheld records and explains the exemption claimed for each one. Our Vaughn index guide walks through how these indices work and when courts demand a line by line segregability showing rather than a blanket exemption claim covering an entire document. Courts are more likely to require that granular showing when the withholdings are extensive or when the requester specifically challenges the agency’s segregability analysis.
Cut off dates draw more litigation than almost any other search detail. Agencies often choose the date they began processing the request, which courts generally accept as reasonable. Disputes arise when a requester can show that responsive records were created, or became known to the agency, after that date but before the agency completed processing, particularly when the agency’s own internal records referenced ongoing activity relevant to the request. Courts evaluate these claims cautiously, since an agency cannot be expected to restart its search indefinitely, but a demonstrably unreasonable cutoff, one chosen to avoid a known batch of records, can sink an otherwise solid affidavit.
Pro Tip: Request the agency’s search log or processing notes in your initial appeal. A log showing exactly when the search ran and what terms were used often reveals gaps before you ever file suit.
Appealing and Litigating an Inadequate Search
When an agency’s response looks thin, the administrative appeal is the first and usually fastest lever. Under DOJ OIP’s administrative appeals guidance, agencies should give requesters at least 90 days from a final adverse determination to file an appeal, and agencies are expected to decide that appeal within 20 working days absent unusual circumstances. An appeal that specifically asks for expanded search detail, such as search logs, named systems, or a custodian list, often resolves the dispute without anyone setting foot in federal court.
Evidence that actually moves the needle in an adequacy dispute tends to fall into a few categories:
- Internal agency documents or public statements referencing a records system the declaration never mentions.
- Contradictory public records, such as a press release or a congressional testimony, suggesting the agency possesses something its search missed.
- Declarations from former employees or other witnesses describing recordkeeping practices the agency’s affidavit omits.
When the administrative appeal fails to produce a more complete search, litigation becomes the remaining option. FOIA cases are resolved almost exclusively through summary judgment, which means the agency’s declaration and any rebuttal evidence the requester submits will likely decide the case without a trial. A court denies summary judgment to the agency, rather than ordering full discovery, when the declaration is conclusory or when the requester’s rebuttal raises genuine factual questions about whether the search covered the right ground. Discovery in FOIA suits is narrow and disfavored; courts generally expect the agency’s declaration to stand on its own, so a well-documented rebuttal matters more than a hope of deposing agency staff. Our guide to fighting government denials covers how this litigation posture plays out in practice, including how courts handle motions for a more detailed Vaughn index or supplemental affidavit.
Pro Tip: If an agency’s declaration describes a search in vague, general terms, move for a more detailed affidavit before accepting a dispositive motion. Courts frequently grant this when the existing declaration fails the Oglesby standard.
Drafting Requests That Avoid Search Disputes Later
Most adequacy disputes trace back to a request that was too vague for the agency to search efficiently in the first place. A request that names likely custodians, a defined date range, and the record format you want gives the agency fewer excuses and gives you, later, a cleaner record to point to if the search comes back thin.
- Describe records, not questions. Ask for emails, memos, or reports, not for an agency’s “position” or “analysis” of a topic.
- Name likely custodians or offices when you know or suspect who holds the records, since this narrows the agency’s search and reduces the odds of an incomplete declaration.
- Set a clear date range tied to events you can document, which also helps you later evaluate whether the agency’s cut off date was reasonable.
- Suggest search terms, including variants and acronyms, since agencies are expected to run reasonable variations but are not required to guess every possible misspelling or shorthand, according to DOJ OIP’s training materials on records search.
- Specify the format you want, since the statute requires agencies to produce records in the requested format when reasonably possible.
A few additional habits reduce friction before a dispute ever starts:
- Check whether the agency has already posted the records online, since FOIA does not require a new search for material already published.
- Ask the agency to confirm in writing which systems or offices it searched, even before an appeal becomes necessary.
- Request interim or rolling releases on large requests instead of waiting for one final response.
Fee management also shapes how far an agency searches. If you fall into a fee category with search charges, consider capping your request to a dollar amount and asking the agency to notify you before exceeding it, rather than letting the agency decide where to stop. Keep every communication with the agency’s FOIA office, and ask the agency to memorialize phone calls or informal clarifications in the case file, since those records become useful later if a dispute over scope arises. Our practical guide to drafting FOIA requests covers these drafting habits in more depth, and researchers working investigative angles, including those searching cold case records through NamUs and related FOIA triage, face many of the same scoping challenges when agency records span multiple jurisdictions.
Pro Tip: Build your date range and search terms into the request itself, in writing. A declaration that ignores terms you explicitly suggested is far easier to challenge than one responding to a vague, undefined request.
How We Evaluate Search Adequacy for Our Clients
When we take on a FOIA matter where the agency’s response looks incomplete, we start by requesting the underlying search log and demanding a custodian list before deciding whether an administrative appeal or a federal lawsuit is the right next step. That sequence matters: an agency that produces a thin declaration on appeal has often told us more than it realizes about where its search actually fell short.
Our approach typically includes:
- Requesting contemporaneous preservation or collection notes the agency generated when it ran the search, not just the final declaration.
- Comparing the agency’s stated systems against other public records or prior agency statements that might reference a database the search missed.
- Pursuing a counsel-led administrative appeal first when the agency’s error looks correctable, reserving federal litigation for cases where the agency has already shown it will not supplement voluntarily.
- Building a record for summary judgment that highlights specific, documented gaps rather than general dissatisfaction with the result.
A declaration that cannot answer what was searched, who searched it, and when the search ended, is a declaration that has not met its burden.
Readers researching their own disputes may find our Vaughn index guide useful for understanding how withholding justifications get tested, and our practice page on FOIA and public records describes the kinds of matters we handle for individuals and organizations facing incomplete agency responses.
Choosing Between an Appeal and a Lawsuit
An administrative appeal is almost always the right first move, since it is faster, costs nothing to file, and sometimes produces exactly the supplemental detail needed to resolve the dispute. The calculation changes once you have evidence in hand. If you can point to a specific document, system, or custodian the agency’s declaration never mentioned, that is the kind of concrete rebuttal evidence that actually matters at the litigation stage, not just a feeling that the response was incomplete.
Weigh four things before deciding how far to push: how strong your documentary rebuttal actually is, how responsive the agency has been so far, how much the records matter to you, and how much time and cost you are willing to accept. A request for records tied to a looming deadline, a pending employment claim, or a First Amendment dispute may justify moving to litigation faster than a general research request would.
The sequence that works best in most cases is narrow, document, appeal, then litigate. Narrow your request so the agency has no excuse to search sloppily. Document every communication so you have a paper trail if the declaration later contradicts what the agency told you informally. Appeal with specific, pointed questions about search methodology rather than a general complaint. Only after the administrative record is fully developed, and still deficient, does litigation become the efficient option, because a thin administrative record makes for a weak summary judgment position no matter how justified the underlying complaint feels.
— Mark
Get Help With a FOIA Appeal or Lawsuit
When an agency’s search comes back thin, or a declaration reads like boilerplate instead of a real account of what was searched, we help clients push back at the administrative level and, when necessary, in federal court. Our FOIA and public records work covers drafting requests built to withstand later scrutiny, filing administrative appeals that demand real search detail, litigating adequacy disputes when agencies will not supplement voluntarily, reviewing Vaughn indices for improper withholdings, and pursuing expedited processing when records are time sensitive.
We handle many FOIA and public records matters on a contingency basis, so clients generally pay nothing unless we recover something for them. If an agency’s response to your request looks incomplete or evasive, visit our FOIA and public records practice page to request a case evaluation and talk through what a stronger appeal or lawsuit could look like for your records.
This article is general information, not a substitute for advice from a qualified lawyer. Consult a qualified legal professional about your own circumstances before acting on anything here.
FAQ
What makes a FOIA search legally adequate?
A search is adequate when it is reasonably calculated to uncover all records responsive to the request, which agencies typically demonstrate through detailed declarations describing the systems searched, terms used, and custodians contacted. The search does not need to be perfect or find every possible document, only reasonable given what the agency knew at the time.
What are the nine exemptions from FOIA?
FOIA guidance lists nine exemption categories covering areas like classified national security information, internal personnel rules, information protected by other statutes, trade secrets, and personal privacy. An agency must cite a specific exemption and, where withholding only part of a document, release any reasonably segregable non exempt portions.
What information cannot be released under FOIA?
Records or portions of records falling under one of the nine statutory exemptions can be withheld, including classified defense material, certain trade secrets, and information that would cause a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, as outlined in FOIA.gov’s guidance. Agencies must still release any segregable portions that do not fall under an exemption.
Do all states have their own public records laws?
Yes, every state has its own public records or open records law separate from the federal FOIA statute, and these state laws govern requests to state and local agencies rather than federal ones. The scope, exemptions, and timelines vary significantly by state, so a request to a state agency follows that state’s law rather than the federal standard described here.
Is FOIA still in effect today?
Yes, the federal Freedom of Information Act remains fully in effect and continues to govern requests for records from federal agencies. Courts continue to apply and refine the adequacy of search standard through ongoing litigation, including recent decisions addressing cut off dates and search scope.