May 12, 2026
SENT BY EMAIL
XXXX
Re: 2026-APP-00008 (Appeal of Response 2026-FOIA-00015)
Dear XXXX:
On March 11, 2026, you submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)/Privacy Act (PA)1 request (2026-FOIA-00015) to the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) FOIA Processing Center (FOIA Office) for records relating to your Consumer Assistance Center (CAC) consumer complaint involving XXXX Federal Credit Union, Case No. 00251932, and “the record NCUA relied upon to write the statement ‘appears to have been fraudulently produced.’” This request followed your earlier FOIA/PA requests 2025-FOIA-000382 and 2026-FOIA-00005.3
In correspondence with the FOIA Office clarifying your request, you explained that “NCUA’s CAC closure letter [in response to your complaint Case No. 00251932] includes the sentence: ‘The credit union further stated that the check provided did not contain a valid routing number and appears to have been fraudulently produced.’” Accordingly, you narrowed your request to specifically ask for “the exact record(s) NCUA relied upon to write the statement ‘appears to have been fraudulently produced,’ including any XXXX written response, email, attachment, transmittal, or any NCUA internal case note/log/entry/memorandum reflecting XXXX’s allegation.”
By letter of April 6, 2026, the FOIA Office notified you that NCUA conducted a search and located no additional records responsive to your request. The FOIA Office explained that all responsive records have already been provided to you in the agency’s prior responses to FOIA/PA requests 2025-FOIA-00038 and 2026-FOIA-00005.
You appealed this determination in a correspondence received on April 14, 2026. In your appeal, you contend that the agency’s response is insufficient. You argue that NCUA has failed to produce records supporting an agency determination and several categories of records “must exist,” including internal memoranda, notes or summaries; communications with XXXX Federal Credit Union or third parties; examiner analyses, findings, or investigative materials; referral documentation or supporting evidence considered; and drafts, annotations, or internal deliberative materials. You request that NCUA conduct a supplemental search for all responsive records; produce all non-exempt records; provide a detailed description of the search conducted; identify any applicable exemptions; and confirm whether any factual basis exists for the referenced statement.
Upon a full and independent review, your appeal is denied, as discussed more fully below.
Adequacy of Search for Responsive Records
In your appeal, you argue that “the statement that materials ‘appear to have been fraudulently produced’ reflects an agency determination or evaluative conclusion, not a purely ministerial or clerical observation.” You assert that additional records therefore “must exist, unless NCUA is asserting that the statement was made without any supporting documentation.”4 You maintain that “given the nature of the statement at issue, a reasonable search would necessarily include” complaint investigation files; examiner workpapers; internal email systems; and communications with XXXX Federal Credit Union and any referring entities.
The FOIA generally provides a statutory right of public access to government information in executive branch agency records.5 An agency that receives a proper request for agency records must make the records promptly available,6 except to the extent that such records or any portions of such records are protected from public disclosure by one of nine exemptions.7 Information maintained by an agency8 constitutes an “agency record”9 under the FOIA when the records are created or obtained by an agency, and under agency control at the time of the FOIA request.10
When any person requests access to agency records, the FOIA requires the agency to look for records that are reasonably responsive to the request.11 The FOIA does not require an agency to do research, analyze data, answer written questions, or in any other way create records in order to respond to a request.12 However, an 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.’”13 Where the adequacy of a search is in question, “the focus of the adequacy inquiry is not on the results,”14 or “‘whether there might exist any [] documents possibly responsive to the request, but rather whether the search for those documents was adequate.’”15
An agency’s search is deemed adequate when it is “reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents.”16 In general, “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.”17 For example, “simply claiming that it is ‘common sense’ and ‘commonplace knowledge’ that records would likely exist . . . is far from the specific evidence that is usually required to overcome an agency’s representations” that no records were found.18 Indeed, “the reasonableness of a search is not measured against the scope dictated by a requester’s search instructions.”19 A requester in general “cannot dictate the search terms,” and “[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.”20
Some of the records you requested are maintained as part of an NCUA Privacy Act System of Records. Therefore, 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 found no additional records apart from those previously provided. All responsive agency records in the NCUA’s control, including the requested investigation file, were already given to you in response to your prior FOIA/PA requests 2025-FOIA-00038 and 2026-FOIA-00005.
Reasonably Segregable
You assert in your appeal that, to the extent that any responsive records are being withheld under FOIA exemptions, the agency is required to release all reasonably segregable portions of those records.
If an agency determines that it cannot or should not make full disclosure of a requested record, the FOIA calls for the agency to “consider whether partial disclosure of information is possible” and “take reasonable steps necessary to segregate and release nonexempt information.”21 However, NCUA is not required to disclose information “inextricably intertwined with exempt portions,”22 and “need not disclose a redacted version of [a record] if the unredacted markings would have minimal or no information content.”23
The unredacted parts of the records previously provided to you in response to your FOIA/PA requests 2025-FOIA-00038 and 2026-FOIA-00005 represent the reasonably segregable nonexempt sections of the agency's responsive records. Since NCUA did not find any additional records responsive to your FOIA/PA request 2026-FOIA-00015, there was no need to conduct a segregability analysis.
Vaughn Index
Finally, you note that the agency’s response did not provide a “Vaughn index” or equivalent explanation. A Vaughn index is an index of withheld documents or portions of documents that a plaintiff in a FOIA litigation is entitled to.24 Your administrative appeal is outside the litigation context. The agency declines to provide a Vaughn index in this matter.
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-00008; 2026-FOIA-00015
Footnotes
15 U.S.C. § 552a; 12 C.F.R. §792.
2On August 7, 2025, you submitted a FOIA/PA request for “all internal and external records relating to the NCUA consumer complaint I submitted involving XXXX Federal Credit Union . . .” On September 22, 2025, your request was partially granted/denied, and all NCUA records responsive to your request were provided to you (122 total pages: 117 pages disclosed in full, 5 pages disclosed with partial redactions, 0 pages withheld).
3On December 9, 2025, you submitted a FOIA/PA request for “the complete file related to NCUA Consumer Assistance Center Case No. 00251932.” On January 27, 2026, your request was granted in full, and 111 pages of responsive records were provided to you. The FOIA Office explained that the “records responsive to this request, in combination with the records already provided to you in response to request 2025-FOIA-00038, represent all records that are part of the file for 00251932.”
4Irrespective of this response to your FOIA/PA appeal, NCUA does not concede to your characterization of the statement in question or your interpretation of the result of your consumer complaint 00251932.
5Similarly, 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).
65 U.S.C. §552(a)(3)(A).
75 U.S.C. §552(b).
85 U.S.C. §552(f)(1).
95 U.S.C. §552(f)(2)(A).
10See DOJ v. Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. 136, 144-45 (1989).
115 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(D).
12See Kissinger v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136,152 (1980) (“The Act does not obligate agencies to create or retain documents; it only obligates them to provide access to those which it in fact has created and retained.”); Carson v. U.S. Office of Special Counsel, 534 F. Supp.2d 99, 102-103 (D.D.C. 2008) (“The FOIA does not require an agency to create documents that do not exist or to collect disparate data and then generate an agency record.”).
13Nation 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)).
14Hornbostel 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).
15Steinberg v. DOJ, 23 F.3d 548, 551 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (quoting Weisberg v. DOJ, 745 F.2d 1476, 1485 (D.C. Cir. 1984)).
16Weisberg v. DOJ, 705 F.2d 1344, 1351 (D.C. Cir. 1983).
17Jennings 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.”).
18Am. Oversight v. DOJ, 401 F. Supp. 3d 16, 30-31 (D.D.C. 2019) (internal citation omitted).
19McClanahan v. DOJ, 204 F. Supp. 3d 30, 44 (D.D.C. 2016) (quoting Mobley v. CIA, 806 F.3d 568, 582 (D.C. Cir. 2015)), aff’d, 712 F. App’x 6 (D.C. Cir. 2018).
20Bigwood 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)).
215 U.S.C. § 552(a)(8)(A)(ii).
22Mead Data Cent., Inc. v. United States Dep't of the Air Force, 566 F.2d 242, 260 (D.C. Cir. 1977).
23Perioperative Servs. & Logistics, LLC v. U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 57 F.4th 1061, 1069 (D.C. Cir. 2023) (citing Mead Data Center, Inc. v. Dep’t of the Air Force, 566 F.2d 242, 261 n.55 (D.C. Cir. 1977)).
24See Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir.1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 977 (1974).