UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

KATHERINE EBAN,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action No. 23 - 2516 (LLA)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

The matter is before the court on a motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants, the

U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Army, ECF No. 25, and a cross-motion for summary

judgment filed by Plaintiff Katherine Eban, ECF No. 29. Ms. Eban seeks records about “Operation

Whitecoat,” a biodefense medical research study conducted by the Army between 1954 and 1973.

ECF No. 1 ¶ 1. Ms. Eban claims that Defendants violated the Freedom of Information Act

(“FOIA”),

, by failing to conduct a reasonable search for responsive records.

. Upon consideration of the motions and supporting documentation, the court will grant

in part and deny in part Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, deny in part and hold in

abeyance in part Ms. Eban’s cross-motion for summary judgment, and stay the case pending the

parties’ status report concerning future proceedings.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The following facts are undisputed. Ms. Eban is an investigative journalist and a

Contributing Editor at Vanity Fair. ECF No. 1 ¶ 2. She seeks records from Defendants about

“Operation Whitecoat,” an Army biomedical research program that took place between 1954 and 1973 in Fort Detrick, Maryland, in which the “military administered the plague, and other

dangerous biological agents, to thousands of Seventh Day Adventists—draftees whose religious

convictions forbade combat.” ECF No. 29-2 ¶¶ 1-2; ECF No. 32-1 ¶¶ 1-2; see ECF No. 25-2 ¶ 1;

ECF No. 29-3 ¶ 1.

On December 28, 2022, Ms. Eban submitted a FOIA request to the Army’s central FOIA

office for records relating to Operation Whitecoat. ECF No. 25-2 ¶¶ 1-2; ECF No. 29-2 ¶ 8; ECF

No. 29-3 ¶ 1-2; ECF No. 32-1 ¶ 8. For the time period between January 1, 1952 and December 31,

1976, she sought:

1. Any and all records on collaborative projects between the Department of Defense and the Seventh Day Adventist Church. These records should include but are not limited to, letters, telegrams, meeting memos, meeting minutes, agreements/contracts, and transcriptions or recordings of any conversations or phone calls.

2. Any and all records of communications exchanged between military officials and Seventh Day Adventist church officials. The military officials should include but are not limited to: George E. Armstrong, US Army surgeon general; Lieutenant Colonel William D. Tigert of Walter Reed Medical Center; Phillip R. Pittman, Former Chief, Division of Medicine, USAMRIID, Fort Detrick, MD. The Seventh Day Adventist officials should include but are not limited to: Dr. Frank Damazo, Operation Whitecoat liaison between the Army and the church; Theodore R. Flaiz, secretary of the medical department of the General Conference; Elder G.W. Chambers, secretary of the War Service Commission of the Seventh Day Adventist General Conference. These records of communications should include but are not limited to, letters, telegrams, meeting memos, meeting minutes, agreements, contracts, transcriptions, or recordings of any conversations or phone calls.

3. Any and all records pertaining to Operation Whitecoat’s protocols to recruit, evaluate and select the Seventh Day Adventist volunteers, or any other volunteers, participating in the program. These records should include but are not limited to, lists of participants, medical records, agreements/contracts,

2 meeting minutes, meeting memos, consent forms, waivers, and experiment protocols.

4. Any and all records pertaining to Operation Whitecoat’s operations, experiments, and treatment offered to participants. These records should include but are not limited to the medical resources provided to participants, physical evaluations, psychological evaluations, and religious counseling.

5. Any and all records related to financial compensation, funding, donations, contributions, other payments, or other benefits made or received by the Department of Defense or any of its officials to or from [t]he Seventh Day Adventist church or any of its officials. The military officials should include but are not limited to: George E. Armstrong, US Army surgeon general and Lieutenant Colonel William D. Tigert of Walter Reed Medical Center. The Seventh Day Adventist officials should include but are not limited to: Dr. Frank Damazo, Operation Whitecoat liaison between the army and the church; Theodore R. Flaiz, secretary of the medical department of the General Conference; Elder G.W. Chambers, secretary of the War Service Commission of the Seventh Day Adventist General Conference. These records should include but are not limited to financial statements, letters, memos, telegrams, reports, receipts, meeting minutes, transcriptions, or recordings of any conversations or phone calls.

ECF No. 1-1, at 1-2.1 For the time period between January 1, 1976 and the date of the search for

responsive records, she sought:

1. Any and all records pertaining to communications between the Department of Defense and surgeon Dr. Frank Damazo. These records may include but are not limited to: financial statements, payments, letters, memos, telegrams, reports, agreements/contracts, salary compensation, transcriptions, or recordings of any conversations and phone calls.

.

1 When citing ECF Nos. 1-1, 25-4, 25-6, 25-7, 25-8, 29-4, 32-2, and 32-3, the court uses the page numbers generated by CM/ECF, rather than each document’s internal pagination.

3 In January 2023, Ms. Eban contacted the Army to inquire about the status of her FOIA

request.

; see ECF No. 25-2 ¶ 3 (Defendants describing Ms. Eban’s email as a resubmission

of her FOIA request); ECF No. 29-3 ¶ 3 (Ms. Eban describing the email as a status inquiry). A

week later, the U.S. Army Center of Military History notified Ms. Eban that it did not have any

responsive records. ECF No. 1-1, at 12-14; see ECF No. 25-2 ¶ 4; ECF No. 29-3 ¶ 4. The center

recommended that she contact the National Archives and Records Administration (“NARA”) and

provided the contact information for three historians or librarians affiliated with the Army. ECF

No. 1-1, at 13; see ECF No. 25-2 ¶ 4; ECF No. 29-3 ¶ 4.

Ms. Eban then submitted an identical FOIA request to NARA. ECF No. 1-1, at 18-20; see

ECF No. 1 ¶ 14. In February 2023, NARA informed her that it did not locate any responsive

records. ECF No. 1-1, at 16-18; see ECF No. 25-2 ¶ 5; ECF No. 29-3 ¶ 5. NARA explained that

“[r]elevant records still may be in the custody of the Army,” and it provided three reference

numbers for files that “possibly includ[e] records on Operation Whitecoat.” ECF No. 1-1, at 17.

Ms. Eban forwarded this information to the Army’s central FOIA office.

.

In March 2023, the Army’s central FOIA office responded to Ms. Eban and explained that

the reference numbers she had provided were “under the purview of U.S[.] Army Medical

Research [Institute] of Infectious Diseases [(“USAMRIID”)].”

. The office further

advised that “for a quicker response, . . . requesters [should] go directly to the specific FOIA office

that may have responsive records” and shared the contact information for the Army’s Medical

Command Requester Service Center. Id.; see ECF No. 25-2 ¶ 6; ECF No. 29-3 ¶ 6. In June, the

office notified Ms. Eban that her FOIA request was still in the processing queue. ECF No. 1-1,

at 29; see ECF No. 25-2 ¶ 7; ECF No. 29-3 ¶ 7.

4 As a result of Ms. Eban’s FOIA request, the U.S. Army Medical Research and

Development Command (“USAMRDC”) identified two subordinate commands with potentially

responsive records: Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (“WRAIR”) and USAMRIID. ECF

No. 25-4, at 3-4 ¶¶ 8-9; see ECF No. 25-2 ¶ 8; ECF No. 29-3 ¶ 8. Beginning in September 2023,

WRAIR and USAMRIID conducted electronic searches for responsive records and released

records on a rolling basis. ECF No. 25-4, at 4-5 ¶¶ 10-12; see ECF No. 25-2 ¶ 9; ECF No. 29-3

¶ 9; ECF No. 29-2 ¶ 9; ECF No. 32-1 ¶ 9. WRAIR’s and USAMRIID’s searches yielded

approximately 86,000 pages of potentially responsive records. ECF No. 25-4, at 4 ¶ 11; see ECF

No. 25-2 ¶ 12; ECF No. 29-3 ¶ 12. The Army did not conduct searches for physical records at

WRAIR and USAMRIID because it determined that “all hard copies of records from Operation

Whitecoat were scanned to digital format prior to archiving at” NARA. ECF No. 25-4, at 4 ¶ 10;

see ECF No. 29-2 ¶ 10; ECF No. 32-1 ¶ 10. The electronic search terms the Army used included

“Seventh Day Adventist,” “Operation Whitecoat,” “Operation White Coat,” and “Tigert.” ECF

No. 25-4, at 4-5 ¶¶ 11-12; see ECF No. 25-2 ¶ 10; ECF No. 29-3 ¶ 10. USAMRIID also identified

the 147 protocols used in Operation Whitecoat and located responsive records by searching

documents related to each protocol. ECF No. 32-2, at 4-5 ¶¶ 2-3.

Before releasing the responsive records, Defendants withheld information regarding

individual medical records and medical patient information under FOIA Exemption 6 and withheld

information concerning dangerous biological agents and toxins, which are prohibited from

disclosure pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 262a(h), under FOIA Exemption 3. ECF No. 25-4, at 5-8

¶¶ 14-15, 21-22; see ECF No. 25-2 ¶¶ 15, 17; ECF No. 29-3 ¶¶ 15, 17.

In February 2024, Ms. Eban requested that Defendants narrow the scope of the search to

ten years, from 1952 to 1962. ECF No. 25-4, at 6 ¶ 16; see ECF No. 25-2 ¶ 21; ECF No. 29-3

5 ¶ 21. She also submitted a supplemental request for the records of Colonel Tigertt, who led

Operation Whitecoat at its genesis, in the “Office of Army Surgeon General, Army Chemical

Corps, Army Medical Service Graduate School . . . , Walter Reed Army Medical Center . . . , US

Army Medical R&D Command, [and] Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (WRAIR).” ECF

No. 25-4, at 6 ¶ 17; see id. at 4 ¶ 11. Ms. Eban used the correct spelling of Colonel Tigertt’s name

for the first time in her supplemental request. Compare ECF No. 1-1, at 1, 19 (using “Tigert”),

and id. at 18 (using “Tiggert”), with ECF No. 25-4, at 6 ¶ 17 (using “Tigertt”). USAMRDC

forwarded the supplemental request to the respective commands and informed Ms. Eban in March

that the Army Medical Service Graduate School had become WRAIR in 1954. ECF No. 25-4,

at 6-7 ¶¶ 18-20.

Over the summer, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center (“Walter Reed Medical

Center”) conducted an electronic search for records responsive to Ms. Eban’s supplemental

request, ECF No. 25-5 ¶¶ 3-14; see ECF No. 25-2 ¶ 23; ECF No. 29-3 ¶ 23, including by searching

for the terms “Tigertt” and “Tig” to account for misspellings, ECF No. 25-5 ¶ 12. The search

proved unfruitful. ECF No. 25-5 ¶¶ 12-13. The center did not conduct a physical search for

records because it determined that all physical records from the time span in Ms. Eban’s request

had either been transferred to NARA or to other installations pursuant to Army realignments. Id.

¶ 3; ECF No. 32-1 ¶ 15.

The Combat Capabilities Development Command (“DEVCOM”) conducted electronic and

physical searches, which also failed to turn up responsive records. ECF No. 25-6, at 1-4 ¶¶ 1-13;

see ECF No. 25-2 ¶¶ 24-25; ECF No. 29-3 ¶¶ 24-25. DEVCOM searched the following terms:

“WhiteCoat,” “Operation White Coat,” “William D. Tigertt,” “W.D. Tigertt,” “Colonel W.D.

6 Tigertt,” and several variations thereof. ECF No. 25-6, at 3-4 ¶ 8; see ECF No. 25-2 ¶ 24; ECF

No. 29-3 ¶ 24.

Similarly, the Army Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear School conducted

electronic and physical searches for responsive records but was unable to uncover responsive

records. ECF No. 25-7, at 1-2 ¶¶ 1-3; see ECF No. 25-2 ¶¶ 26-27; ECF No. 29-3 ¶¶ 26-27.

Finally, the Army Medical Command conducted an electronic search of its seventy-seven

organizational folders, which yielded no responsive records. ECF No. 25-8, at 1-2 ¶¶ 5-6, 3-7; see

ECF No. 25-2 ¶¶ 28-29; ECF No. 29-3 ¶¶ 28-29.

In August 2024, Ms. Eban’s colleague, Patrick Conway, visited the Gorgas Memorial

Library within WRAIR. ECF No. 29-4, at 1 ¶¶ 4-5; see ECF No. 29-2 ¶ 11; ECF No. 32-1 ¶ 11.

Mr. Conway located dozens of physical records mentioning Colonel Tigertt that had not been

produced in response to Ms. Eban’s FOIA request. ECF No. 29-4, at 1 ¶¶ 5-6; see ECF No. 29-2

¶ 11; ECF No. 32-1 ¶ 11.

In January 2025, USAMRDC conducted an additional electronic search using the term

“Tigertt” to “alleviate [Ms. Eban’s] concerns regarding the misspelling of [Colonel] Tigertt’s

name” in the initial searches. ECF No. 32-2, at 3 ¶ 8. No additional records were found. Id.

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Ms. Eban filed this action in August 2023, ECF No. 1, and it was directly reassigned to the

undersigned in December 2023, Dec. 14, 2023 Docket Entry. In her complaint, Ms. Eban alleged

that Defendants had violated FOIA by failing to conduct a reasonable search for responsive

records, to timely respond to her request, and to produce all non-exempt records, ECF No. 1

¶¶ 28-34, and she sought declaratory, injunctive, and mandamus relief, as well as fees and costs,

id. at 7. The parties met and conferred about Ms. Eban’s FOIA request six times to narrow the

7 scope of the case before proceeding to summary judgment. ECF Nos. 14 to 17, 19, 20 (status

reports); ECF Nos. 25, 29, 30, 32 to 35 (summary judgment briefing). At this stage of the

litigation, the only issue before the court is whether Defendants conducted an adequate search for

records that are responsive to Ms. Eban’s FOIA request. See ECF No. 29-1, at 3-7; ECF No. 32,

at 1-2.

III. LEGAL STANDARDS

The purpose of FOIA is “to pierce the veil of administrative secrecy and to open agency

action to the light of public scrutiny.” Am. C.L. Union v. U.S. Dep’t of Just.,

(D.C. Cir. 2011) (quoting Dep’t of Air Force v. Rose,

(1976)). “[T]he vast

majority of FOIA cases can be resolved on summary judgment.” Brayton v. Off. of the U.S. Trade

Representative,

(D.C. Cir. 2011). A court shall grant summary judgment “if

the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled

to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

To prevail on a motion for summary judgment about the adequacy of a search, “the agency

must demonstrate that it has conducted a ‘search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant

documents.’” Steinberg v. U.S. Dep’t of Just.,

(D.C. Cir. 1994) (quoting

Weisberg v. U.S. Dep’t of Just.,

(D.C. Cir. 1984)). “The adequacy of a search

is ‘determined not by the fruits of the search, but by the appropriateness of the methods used to

carry out the search.’” Kowal v. U.S. Dep’t of Just.,

, 1027 (D.C. Cir. 2024)

(quoting Ancient Coin Collectors Guild v. U.S. Dep’t of State,

(D.C. Cir. 2011)).

A court may grant summary judgment “on the basis of agency affidavits if they contain reasonable

specificity of detail rather than merely conclusory statements, and if they are not called into

question by contradictory evidence in the record or by evidence of agency bad faith.” Jud. Watch,

8 Inc. v. U.S. Secret Serv.,

(D.C. Cir. 2013) (quoting Consumer Fed’n of Am. v.

Dep’t of Agric.,

(D.C. Cir. 2006)). Agency affidavits must “set[] forth the

search terms and the type of search performed[] and aver[] that all files likely to contain responsive

materials . . . were searched.” Reps. Comm. for Freedom of Press v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation,

(D.C. Cir. 2017) (quoting Oglesby v. U.S. Dep’t of Army,

(D.C. Cir. 1990)).

“[O]nce the agency has provided a ‘reasonably detailed’ affidavit describing its search, the

burden shifts to the FOIA requester to produce ‘countervailing evidence’ suggesting that a genuine

dispute of material fact exists as to the adequacy of the search.” Pinson v. U.S. Dep’t of Just.,

(D.D.C. 2016) (quoting Morley v. Cent. Intel. Agency,

(D.C. Cir. 2007)). Such countervailing evidence may include “problems with . . . the specific

search terms used or the inadequacy of the particular locations searched.” Heartland All. for Hum.

Needs & Hum. Rts. v. U.S. Immigr. & Customs Enf’t,

, 117 (D.D.C. 2019).

However, because an agency’s affidavits or declarations “are accorded a presumption of good

faith, [they] cannot be rebutted by ‘purely speculative claims about the existence and

discoverability of other documents.’” SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n,

(D.C. Cir. 1991) (quoting Ground Saucer Watch, Inc. v. Cent. Intel. Agency,

(D.C. Cir. 1981)). If “a review of the record raises substantial doubt, particularly in view

of ‘well[-]defined requests and positive indications of overlooked materials,’ summary judgment

is inappropriate.” Lamb v. Millennium Challenge Corp.,

(D.D.C. 2018)

(quoting Valencia-Lucena v. U.S. Coast Guard,

(D.C. Cir. 1999)).

9 IV. DISCUSSION

As noted, the only remaining dispute between the parties concerns the adequacy of

Defendants’ search for responsive records. See ECF No. 29-1, at 3-7; ECF No. 32, at 1-2. In

support of their motion for summary judgment, Defendants submit thirteen declarations, affidavits,

and statements, three records search certifications, and a Vaughn index. See ECF No. 25-4, at 1-8

(Larcom Decl.), 10-15 (Vaughn index); ECF No. 25-5 (Spicer Aff.); ECF No. 25-6, at 1-5 (Knapp

Decl.), 6-7 (Foppiano Records Search Certification), 8-9 (Wiltison Records Search Certification),

10-11 (Stein Records Search Certification); ECF No. 25-7, at 1-2 (Lindberg Decl.), 3 (Lindberg

Aff.); ECF No. 25-8, at 1-2 (Koenig Aff.), 3 (Carolin-Godbolt Statement), 4 (Spidell Statement);

ECF No. 32-2, at 1-3 (Suppl. Larcom Decl.), 4-5 (Pitt Decl.); ECF No. 32-3, at 1-3 (George Decl.);

ECF No. 32-4 (Suppl. Koenig Decl.); ECF No. 32-5 (Suppl. Lindberg Decl.). Ms. Eban contends

that the search was deficient in three ways: (1) the Army should have searched for electronic

records throughout USAMRIID instead of limiting its search to USAMRIID’s Medical Division,

ECF No. 34, at 1-4; (2) the Army should have searched for records at USAMRIID using the proper

spelling of Lieutenant Colonel William D. Tigertt’s name (“Tigertt” instead of “Tigert,” as

Ms. Eban had originally spelled it in her FOIA request), ECF No. 29-1, at 5-7; ECF No. 34, at 7-8;

and (3) the Army should have conducted searches for physical records at WRAIR, USAMRIID,

the Army Medical Command, and Walter Reed Medical Center, ECF No. 29-1, at 3-4; ECF

No. 34, at 4-7. While Ms. Eban does not challenge Defendants’ search for electronic records at

WRAIR, see generally ECF Nos. 29-1, 34, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment only if

they have demonstrated the adequacy of their search at that location with “reasonable specificity

of detail” that is not “called into question by contradictory evidence in the record or by evidence

10 of agency bad faith.” Jud. Watch, Inc.,

(quoting Consumer Fed’n of Am.,

).

For the reasons explained below, the court concludes that Defendants have not met their

burden to establish the adequacy of the search for electronic records at WRAIR and USAMRIID,

but that Defendants are entitled to summary judgment concerning any physical records at WRAIR,

USAMRIID, the Army Medical Command, and Walter Reed Medical Center. Accordingly, the

court will grant Defendant’s motion in part and deny it in part, and it will stay the case to permit

Defendants to supplement their declarations to provide a clearer description of the Army’s searches

for electronic records at WRAIR and USAMRIID. If Defendants do not return with sufficient

declarations, the court will grant summary judgment to Ms. Eban as it concerns the Army’s

searches for electronic records at WRAIR and USAMRIID.

A. Searches for Electronic Records at WRAIR and USAMRIID

In support of the adequacy of their searches for electronic records at WRAIR and

USAMRIID, Defendants present the declarations of USAMRDC FOIA Officer Carl T. Larcom

and Dr. Margaret Pitt, a senior scientist at USAMRIID and the FOIA Program Alternate

Coordinator. ECF No. 25-4, at 1-8; ECF No. 32-2, at 1-5. Mr. Larcom asserts that the Army

searched “[a]ll electronic drives at USAMRIID and WRAIR,” yielding approximately 86,000

potentially responsive pages, and that the search terms “Seventh Day Adventist,” “Operation

Whitecoat,” and “Operation White Coat” were used. ECF No. 25-4, at 4 ¶ 10-11. Mr. Larcom

also avers that he conducted a search of “[a]ll electronic drives at WRAIR”—first for the search

term “Tigert” and then for the correctly spelled “Tigertt.” ECF No. 25-4, at 4-5 ¶ 12; ECF

No. 32-2, at 3 ¶ 8. In her declaration, Dr. Pitt states that she “caused a search of USAMRIID for

all records pertaining to Operation Whitecoat” and that the Medical Division was “the most likely

11 place for any responsive records because the historic records of clinical studies (which includes

Operation Whitecoat) were maintained and stored in the Medical Division.” ECF No. 32-2, at 4

¶ 2.

While an agency’s affidavits are accorded a presumption of good faith, see SafeCard

Servs., Inc.,

, Mr. Larcom’s supplemental declaration and Dr. Pitt’s declaration

raise significant doubts about the veracity of Mr. Larcom’s statement that “[a]ll electronic drives

at USAMRIID and WRAIR” were searched for relevant terms, ECF No. 25-4, at 4 ¶ 10.

Specifically, the Army has not demonstrated that the Medical Division was the only location within

USAMRIID that was likely to produce responsive records, and the search terms used at WRAIR

were not “reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents.” Steinberg,

(quoting Weisberg,

). Accordingly, the court will deny summary judgment to

Defendants with respect to the searches for electronic records at WRAIR and USAMRIID, but it

will permit Defendants to supplement their declarations to provide the court with more detail about

those searches. See Leopold v. Dep’t of Def.,

, 92 (D.D.C. 2024) (denying

cross-motions for summary judgment and inviting further declarations from the agency as to the

adequacy of its search); Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Just.,

(D.D.C. 2002) (“[W]hen an agency’s affidavits or declarations are deficient regarding the

adequacy of its search, . . . courts generally will request that the agency supplement its supporting

declarations.”).

1. WRAIR

As noted, Ms. Eban does not challenge the search for electronic records at WRAIR, but to

prevail on summary judgment, Defendants must demonstrate that they have “conducted a ‘search

reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents.’” Steinberg,

(quoting

12 Weisberg,

). Defendants have not satisfied this burden as it pertains to their

searches for electronic records at WRAIR.

Defendants’ supplemental declarations describing the search at USAMRIID undercut

Mr. Larcom’s statement in his first declaration that the Army conducted searches for “Seventh

Day Adventist,” “Operation Whitecoat,” and “Operation White Coat” at both WRAIR and

USAMRIID. ECF No. 25-4, at 4 ¶¶ 10-11. In his first declaration, Mr. Larcom asserts that

searches of both commands yielded approximately 86,000 potentially responsive pages.

However, this is the same number of pages that he reports Dr. Pitt yielded from her search of

USAMRIID alone. ECF No. 32-2, at 2 ¶ 4. Mr. Larcom does not state that the electronic searches

at WRAIR yielded no responsive records or that the records were wholly duplicative of those

found within USAMRIID, making it difficult for the court to reconcile his declarations with

Dr. Pitt’s.

Additionally, Mr. Larcom’s own searches of WRAIR are not enough to establish an

adequate search because Mr. Larcom states that he searched only for “Tigert” and “Tigertt.” ECF

No. 25-4, at 4-5 ¶ 12; ECF No. 32-2, at 3 ¶ 8. His declarations do not refer to any other key search

terms, such as “Operation Whitecoat,” rendering his searches for electronic records at WRAIR

alone plainly inadequate. See Am. Wild Horse Campaign v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt.,

No. 22-CV-2971,

, at *12 (D.D.C. Apr. 17, 2025) (“‘Search terms’ must be

‘reasonably calculated to turn up the records [the FOIA requester] sought.’” (alteration in original)

(quoting Reps. Comm. for Freedom of Press,

)). Accordingly, without more, the

court cannot grant summary judgment to Defendants on the adequacy of the search for electronic

records at WRAIR.

13 2. Searching all electronic records at USAMRIID

Ms. Eban argues that the USAMRIID search was inadequate because the Army searched

for responsive records only within USAMRIID’s Medical Division as opposed to across the entire

entity. ECF No. 34, at 1-4. Ms. Eban dismisses Mr. Larcom’s declaration asserting that “[a]ll

electronic drives at USAMRIID” were searched, ECF No. 25-4, at 4 ¶ 10, since he “does not claim

to be located at USAMRIID or to have conducted the search,” ECF No. 34, at 2. Ms. Eban asserts

that Mr. Larcom learned about the USAMRIID search from Dr. Pitt. ECF No. 34, at 2 & n.2; see

ECF No. 32-2, at 2 ¶¶ 4-5. Ms. Eban thus relies on Dr. Pitt’s representation in her declaration that

Dr. Pitt “determined that the Medical Division would be the most likely place for any responsive

records,” ECF No. 32-2, at 4 ¶ 2, to assert that “USAMRIID limited its search to its Medical

Division,” ECF No. 34, at 2 (emphasis added). Searching “the most likely place for any responsive

records,” Ms. Eban insists, ECF No. 34, at 3 (quoting ECF No. 32-2, at 4 ¶ 2), fails to satisfy

FOIA’s requirement that the agency show that “no other record system was likely to produce

responsive documents,”

(quoting Oglesby,

); see Shteynlyuger v. Ctrs. for

Medicare & Medicaid Servs.,

, 114 (D.D.C. 2023) (“[T]he question is not

whether the agency searched the most likely places to maintain responsive records; the question is

whether the agency searched all places where records were reasonably likely to be found.”). The

court agrees.

Although an agency “need not ‘search every record system’” to satisfy its burden of

conducting an adequate search, “it also may not ‘limit its search to only one record system if there

are others that are likely to turn up the information requested.’” Montgomery v. Internal Revenue

Serv.,

(D.C. Cir. 2022) (quoting Oglesby,

); see Leopold, 752 F.

Supp. 3d at 82-83. While “[m]ere speculation that additional documents might be found in another

14 [location]” is not sufficient to render an agency’s search inadequate, Nolen v. Dep’t of Just.,

(D.D.C. 2015), Ms. Eban has raised a “substantial doubt,” DiBacco v. U.S.

Army,

(D.C. Cir. 2015) (quoting Valencia-Lucena,

), that the

Medical Division was the only location within USAMRIID likely to maintain records responsive

to her request.

Dr. Pitt explains in her declaration that the Medical Division was “the most likely place for

any responsive records because the historic records of clinical studies (which includes Operation

Whitecoat) were maintained and stored in the Medical Division.” ECF No. 32-2, at 4 ¶ 2.

However, neither Dr. Pitt nor Mr. Larcom submits “good-faith averments that the [Medical

Division] was not just the ‘most likely’ location that would maintain records responsive to

plaintiff’s request, but that it was the ‘only’ location.” Am. Wild Horse Campaign,

, at *8 (emphasis added). Without an explanation of why other divisions at USAMRIID

were unlikely to possess relevant records—or even an explanation of what those other divisions

are—the court cannot conclude that Defendants have satisfied their burden as to the adequacy of

their search at USAMRIID.

3. Searching for “Tigertt” at USAMRIID

Ms. Eban also contends that the search for electronic records at USAMRIID is deficient

because the Army searched for the term “Tigert,” instead of “Tigertt.” ECF No. 34, at 7-8.

Ms. Eban thus argues that USAMRIID should have conducted a search using a root expander.

ECF No. 29-1, at 5-7. Defendants argue that the misspelling of “Tigert” would still capture the

intended term “Tigertt.” ECF No. 29-1, at 5-7; ECF No. 32, at 6; ECF No. 32-2, at 2-3 ¶ 7. As

support, they point to Mr. Larcom’s and Dr. Pitt’s declarations, in which the declarants explain

that “the catalog, indices, and archives relevant to the records at issue are lists and spreadsheets

15 created in Microsoft Word and Excel.” ECF No. 32, at 6. A simple search using either of these

applications, according to Defendants, “would result in all instances of ‘Tigert’ regardless of

additional letters, spaces, or special characters on either end of the search term.’” ECF No. 32-2,

at 2-3 ¶ 7. Defendants also contend that searching “Tigertt” instead of “Tigert” would fail to

capture responsive records that misspelled his name, as Ms. Eban did. See ECF No. 32-2, at 2-3

¶ 7. The court agrees with Ms. Eban.

Defendants’ explanation of the “lists and spreadsheets created in Microsoft Word and

Excel” is wholly unrelated to the search at USAMRIID. That is because those “lists and

spreadsheets” pertain only to the records at Gorgas Memorial Library, which is housed under

WRAIR, not USAMRIID. See ECF No. 32-2, at 2-3 ¶ 7. Defendants fail to otherwise respond to

Ms. Eban’s contentions regarding the need for a root expander for the search at USAMRIID.

While Defendants’ declarations regarding the indexing of their record systems may be accorded a

presumption of good faith, Defendants here provide no description of how the record system at

USAMRIID is indexed. See generally ECF No. 32.

Defendants assert that, in any event, Mr. Larcom conducted an additional search in

January 2025 using the term “Tigertt” to “alleviate [Ms. Eban’s] concerns regarding the

misspelling of [Colonel] Tigertt’s name.” ECF No. 32-2, at 3 ¶ 8; see ECF No. 32, at 6. However,

this explanation, too, applies only to WRAIR. ECF No. 32-2, at 3 ¶ 8 (“All electronic drives at

WRAIR were searched.”). Mr. Larcom’s declarations therefore do not meaningfully respond to

Ms. Eban’s argument that a search for “Tigert” in USAMRIID’s files would not have located all

records referencing “Tigertt.”

Accordingly, Defendants’ declarations leave the court unsure whether the Army conducted

an adequate search of USAMRIID records. The court recognizes that Ms. Eban herself misspelled

16 Colonel Tigertt’s name in her initial FOIA request. ECF No. 1-1, at 1; ECF No. 25-2 ¶ 2; ECF

No. 29-3 ¶ 2. However, her supplemental request used the correct spelling, ECF No. 25-4, at 6

¶ 17, and most of the Army’s searches of other units also used the correct spelling, ECF No. 25-5,

at 4 ¶ 12; ECF No. 25-6, at 3-4 ¶ 8, 11; ECF No. 25-7, at 3; ECF No. 25-8, at 1 ¶ 5, 5; see ECF

No. 25-1, at 9 n.1 (“Though Plaintiff’s FOIA request specified the spelling ‘Tigert’ . . . , Plaintiff

later requested searches of other spelling variations of the name, before concluding that ‘Tigertt’

was the correct spelling variation.”). “If [Defendants] nonetheless conducted [the] search [at

USAMRIID] using only the wrong spelling, the search was inadequate.” Kleinert v. Bureau of

Land Mgmt.,

(D.D.C. 2015); see Int’l Couns. Bureau v. U.S. Dep’t of Def.,

(D.D.C. 2012) (denying summary judgment to an agency where it

failed to conduct a search using an alternate spelling of a detainee’s name); cf. Helmer v. U.S.

Dep’t of State, No. 19-CV-1744,

, at *4 (D.D.C. Jan. 17, 2025) (finding that an

agency ran adequate supplemental searches to capture “inadvertent misspellings”).

In sum, because Defendants have not offered a satisfactory response to Ms. Eban’s

argument that they should have searched for “Tigertt” at USAMRIID, summary judgment for

Defendants is not appropriate.

B. Search for Physical Records

Ms. Eban argues that Defendants’ search for responsive records was inadequate because

the Army failed to search for physical records at WRAIR, USAMRIID, the Army Medical

Command, and Walter Reed Medical Center. ECF No. 29-1, at 3-4; ECF No. 34, at 4-7. The court

disagrees.

17 1. WRAIR and USAMRIID

Ms. Eban contends that the search at WRAIR and USAMRIID was “defective” because

the Army searched only electronic records, and not physical records. ECF No. 29-1, at 4. As

support, Ms. Eban presents the declaration of Mr. Conway, a documentary filmmaker who works

with her. ECF No. 29-4, at 1 ¶ 4. Mr. Conway states that he located several physical records

“relevant to Operation Whitecoat” at the Gorgas Memorial Library, inside WRAIR, including “at

least 31 pages mentioning Colonel William Tigertt.”

at 1 ¶ 5. Mr. Conway explains that,

having reviewed the Army’s production to Ms. Eban, the pages from Gorgas Memorial Library

were not included.

at 1 ¶ 6. Ms. Eban maintains that the documents should have been included

in the Army’s production because of their plain reference to Operation Whitecoat. ECF No. 34,

at 4-6. For example, one of the library documents mentions a meeting in which Colonel Tigertt

reported progress on the “CD-22 study,” and another references a “correspondence series

concerning Seventh Day Adventists.”

at 5 (quoting ECF No. 30-3, at 4, 35). Ms. Eban, citing

to an online military publication, contends that the CD-22 study was the first study to be conducted

under Operation Whitecoat.

Ms. Eban reasons that these records are “‘positive indications of

overlooked material’” and prove that “at least some responsive records remain in the Army’s

possession only in hard-copy form.” ECF No. 29-1, at 4 (quoting Am. Oversight v. U.S. Dep’t of

Health & Hum. Servs.,

(D.C. Cir. 2024)).

Not so. Contrary to Ms. Eban’s claim, the physical records referencing Colonel Tigertt in

Gorgas Memorial Library do not constitute “positive indications of overlooked material,” Am.

Oversight,

(quoting Valencia-Lucena,

), because the agency could

have reasonably concluded that they were not responsive to Ms. Eban’s FOIA request. As

Defendants point out, the library records located by Mr. Conway may mention Colonel Tigertt,

18 but they are not clearly responsive to Ms. Eban’s request for records pertaining to projects

involving the Seventh Day Adventist Church or Operation Whitecoat. ECF No. 33, at 3-4; see

ECF No. 1-1, at 1-2.

Most of the 31 pages Mr. Conway uncovered contain correspondence that merely mentions

Colonel Tigertt but does not refer to any key words in Ms. Eban’s FOIA request. See ECF

No. 29-4, at 3-35.2 The document referring to Colonel Tigertt’s updates on the “CD-22 study,”

for example, mentions “participating church groups” but does not specify the Seventh Day

Adventist Church. See id. at 4. While Ms. Eban contends that these documents “plainly pertain

to Operation Whitecoat” because the CD-22 study was part of Operation Whitecoat, Ms. Eban

must rely on external information to reach that conclusion. ECF No. 34, at 5. However, an agency

is not “obliged to look beyond the four corners of the [FOIA] request for leads to the location of

responsive documents.” Kowalczyk v. Dep’t of Just.,

(D.C. Cir. 1996) (“[I]t will

be the rare case indeed in which an agency record contains a lead so apparent that the [agency]

cannot in good faith fail to pursue it.”). Moreover, the single document Mr. Conway found that

does mention “Seventh Day Adventists” refers to a “1955 correspondence series concerning

Seventh Day Adventists.” ECF No. 29-4, at 35. Colonel Tigertt is mentioned in a different section

of the document for a seemingly unrelated purpose. See

This document therefore does not fall

under the plain terms of Ms. Eban’s FOIA request. See Wilson v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp.,

(D.D.C. 2010) (“Agencies must read and interpret a FOIA request as it was

drafted . . . .”). “At best, [Ms. Eban] has established the [Army] may have missed some records

in [its] searches. But a ‘reasonable and thorough search’ may still miss records.” Kowal, 107

2 One of the documents falls outside the time period to which Ms. Eban narrowed her request. ECF No. 29-4, at 8 (1951 report by Colonel Tigertt).

19 F.4th at 1027 (quoting Iturralde v. Comptroller of Currency,

(D.C. Cir. 2003));

Reps. Comm. for Freedom of Press,

(“That a few responsive documents may have

slipped through the cracks does not, without more, call into question the search’s overall

adequacy.”).

The existence of the library records therefore does not undercut Defendants’ assertion that

all records at WRAIR were digitized and searched, as Defendants were not obligated to produce

any of the documents located by Mr. Conway. Because Ms. Eban fails to otherwise demonstrate

that responsive records remain in the Army’s possession only in physical form, the Army was not

required to conduct a manual search for physical records at WRAIR and USAMRIID.

2. Army Medical Command and Walter Reed Medical Center

Ms. Eban argues that the Army Medical Command and Walter Reed Medical Center

searches were inadequate because neither location conducted a manual search for physical records.

ECF No. 29-1, at 4; ECF No. 34, at 6-7. She claims that Mr. “Conway’s declaration at least creates

a dispute of fact . . . as to whether [record] transfers [to NARA or other installations] occurred for

Operation Whitecoat-related records.” ECF No. 34, at 6.

Ms. Eban’s argument cannot be squared with Mr. Conway’s declaration. In his

declaration, Mr. Conway references neither the Army Medical Command nor Walter Reed

Medical Center. See generally ECF No. 29-4, at 1. Defendants, on the other hand, present two

affidavits explaining the adequacy of their search for records at both locations. First, Defendants

submit the affidavit of Timothy E. Koenig, Chief FOIA Officer for the Army Medical Command,

with accompanying statements by IT Specialists at the Army Medical Command that explain that

the Army Medical Command searched its seventy-seven organizational folders for records using

the terms “Whitecoat,” “Operation Whitecoat,” “William D. Tigert,” “Philip R. Pittman,” “The

20 Seventh Day Adventist Church,” “Dr. Frank Damazo,” “Theodore R. Flaiz,” “Elder G. W.

Chambers,” and “Tigertt,” but found no responsive records. ECF No. 25-8, at 3-5; see

at 1 ¶ 5.

Second, Defendants submit the affidavit of Patricia M. Spicer, General Counsel Direct Care

Legal Support Attorney for Walter Reed Medical Center. ECF No. 25-5. Ms. Spicer explains that

Ms. Eban seeks records from the former Walter Reed Army Medical Center, which is not what is

now known as the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. Id. ¶ 3. Rather, the records

from the former Walter Reed Army Medical Center were transferred to NARA or moved to other

installations as various parts of the Army realigned. Id. Ms. Spicer contacted Walter Reed

Medical Center’s Director for Education, Training, and Research and Chief of the Medical Records

Division to obtain records responsive to Ms. Eban’s FOIA request, but to no avail. Id. ¶¶ 4-7. She

also contacted a senior historian in the Army who had served as the historian for Walter Reed

Army Medical Center before it closed. Id. ¶ 8-13. The senior historian conducted a search for

records using the term “Tigertt” and the abbreviated name “Tig” to account for misspellings, but

the searches yielded no responsive records. Id. ¶ 12.

Since Ms. Eban presents no countervailing evidence that these locations contained

responsive physical records, the court holds that the Army Medical Command and Walter Reed

Medical Center conducted an adequate search.

V. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary

Judgment, ECF No. 25, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. It is further ORDERED that

Ms. Eban’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 29, is DENIED in part and HELD

21 IN ABEYANCE in part. And it is further ORDERED that the case is STAYED and the parties

shall file a joint status report proposing next steps in the litigation on or before October 20, 2025.

SO ORDERED.

LOREN L. ALIKHAN United States District Judge Date: September 29, 2025

22