April 27, 2026
SENT BY EMAIL
XXXX
Re: 2026-APP-00007 (Appeal of Response 2026-FOIA-00010)
Dear XXXX:
On January 20, 2026, you submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request (2026-FOIA-00010) to the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) for call reports for the quarters ending March 31, June 30, and September 30, 2024, and the investigation file for NCUA Case #00264073. Because you requested records about yourself, your request was also processed under the Privacy Act (PA).1
By letter of February 9, 2026, the NCUA FOIA Processing Center granted your FOIA/PA request in full, and 303 pages of responsive records were released to you. No pages were withheld nor redacted.
You appealed this determination in a correspondence received on March 30, 2026. In your appeal, you contend that the agency has failed to provide the requested records, “specifically the Form 5300 Call Report details and Investigation File #00264073,” which you state are essential for your defense in a civil litigation matter. You claim the agency violated the “foreseeable harm” standard and assert that NCUA cannot categorically withhold records under FOIA Exemption 8. You also argue that your request must be processed under the PA and the agency may not use FOIA exemptions to deny a first-party requester access to their own investigation file. You request that the initial decision be reversed, and the requested records released immediately.
Upon a full and independent review, your appeal is denied, as discussed more fully below.
Adequacy of Search for Responsive Records
The FOIA generally provides a statutory right of public access to government information in executive branch agency records.2 An agency that receives a proper request for agency records must make the records promptly available,3 except to the extent that such records or any portions of such records are protected from public disclosure by one of nine exemptions.4 Information maintained by an agency constitutes an “agency record” under the FOIA when the records are created or obtained by an agency, and under agency control at the time of the FOIA request.5
When any person requests access to agency records, the FOIA requires the agency to look for records that are reasonably responsive to the request.6 The agency must make ‘“a good-faith effort to conduct a search for the requested records, using methods which can be reasonably expected to produce the information requested.’”7 Where the adequacy of a search is in question, “the focus of the adequacy inquiry is not on the results,”8 or “‘whether there might exist any [] documents possibly responsive to the request, but rather whether the search for those documents was adequate.’”9 Generally, an agency’s search is deemed adequate when it is “reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents.”10 Courts have found that “the adequacy of a FOIA search is generally determined not by the fruits of the search, but by the appropriateness of the methods used to carry out the search.”11 Thus, “[w]here the search terms are reasonably calculated to lead to responsive documents, a court should neither ‘micromanage’ nor second guess the agency’s search.”12
Some of the records you requested are maintained as part of an NCUA Privacy Act System of Records. Therefore, the NCUA processed your request under the PA, as well as the FOIA, to provide you with the broadest possible access to records about yourself. NCUA conducted an adequate search, and no additional responsive records beyond those already produced were found. All 303 pages of responsive agency records in the NCUA’s control, including the requested call reports and investigation file, were released to you in full.13
For these reasons, your FOIA/PA appeal is denied. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §552(a)(4)(B) of the FOIA, you may seek judicial review of this determination by filing suit against the NCUA. Such a suit may be filed in the United States District Court where you reside, where your principal place of business is located, the District of Columbia, or where the documents are located (the Eastern District of Virginia).
The 2007 FOIA amendments created the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) to offer mediation services to resolve disputes between FOIA requesters and Federal agencies as a non-exclusive alternative to litigation. Using OGIS services does not affect your right to pursue litigation. You may contact OGIS in any of the following ways:
Office of Government Information Services
National Archives and Records Administration
8601 Adelphi Road - OGIS
College Park, MD 20740-6001
E-mail: ogis@nara.gov
Web: https://ogis.archives.gov
Telephone: 202.741.5770
Toll-free: 877.684.6448
Fax: 202.741.5769
Sincerely,
/s/
Frank Kressman
General Counsel
OGC/PY
SSIC: 3212/3226
2026-APP-00007; 2026-FOIA-00010
Footnotes
15 U.S.C. § 552a; 12 C.F.R. §792.
2Similarly, the PA permits an individual to gain access to records or any information pertaining to that individual which is contained in a system of records, subject to certain limitations and exemptions. 5 U.S.C. § 552a. In general, an individual's PA record can only be withheld from them when both PA and FOIA exemptions apply. This ensures that first-party requesters obtain the greatest access to which they are entitled under both statutes. See DOJ “OIP Guidance: The Interface Between the FOIA and Privacy Act” (updated February 7, 2025).
35 U.S.C. §552.
45 U.S.C. §552(f)(2)(A).
5See DOJ v. Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. 136, 144-45 (1989).
65 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(D).
7Nation Mag. v. U.S. Customs Serv., 71 F.3d 885, 890 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (quoting Oglesby v. U.S. Dep't of the Army, 920 F.2d 57, 68 (D.C. Cir. 1990)).
8Hornbostel v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 305 F. Supp. 2d 21, 28 (D.D.C. 2003), aff'd, No. 03-5257, 2004 WL 1900562 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 25, 2004).
9Steinberg v. DOJ, 23 F.3d 548, 551 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (quoting Weisberg v. DOJ, 745 F.2d 1476, 1485 (D.C. Cir. 1984)).
10Weisberg v. DOJ, 705 F.2d 1344, 1351 (D.C. Cir. 1983).
11Jennings v. DOJ, 230 F. App’x 1, 1 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (quoting Iturralde v. Comptroller of Currency, 315 F.3d 311, 315 (D.C. Cir. 2003)); see also Newman v. BOP, No. 20-3761, 2022 WL 1521797, at *5 (D.D.C. May 13, 2022) (noting “[t]he touchstone of [a search] inquiry is the reasonableness of the search, not the records produced.”).
12Bigwood v. DOD, 132 F. Supp. 3d 124, 140 (D.D.C. 2015) (quoting Agility Pub. Warehousing Co. v. NSA, 113 F. Supp. 3d 313, 339 (D.D.C. 2015)).
13Because your FOIA/PA request was granted and all responsive records were released to you in full, NCUA did not invoke any FOIA or PA exemptions to withhold or redact any records.