Additionally, agencies are required to make more than a
perfunctory search and to follow obvious leads as they are
uncovered. The search should not be limited to one or more places
if there are additional sources for the information requested.
Indeed,'the agency cannot limit its search to only one record
system if there are others that are likely to turn up the information
requested.' This is not to say, of course, that an agency must
search every possible place a record may conceivably be
stored, but only those places where it is reasonably likely to
be found.
Id. at 719-20 (quoting Oglesby v. U.S. Dep't of Army, 287 U.S. App. D.C. 126,
920 F.2d 57,68(D.C. Cir. 1990)(emphasis added)(citations omitted)).
Rufin's September 28, 2012 request asked for "all e-mails by or between
Davonna [sic] Johnson, Jorge Carrasco, Steve Kern, Mike Haynes, and/or any
individual in the Law Department that mention my name or the[CM E] manager
hiring process." CP at 151. Rufin sent this request to Walter, who then searched
the e-mail accounts of Johnson, Carrasco, Kern, and Haynes. Walter did not
search Maehara's e-mails (where the forwarded Rufin e-mail was eventually
found in discovery) because he was not among the individuals listed, nor was he
in the Law Department. This search was reasonably calculated to uncover any e-
mails by Johnson, Carrasco, Kern, or Haynes, which were the subject of the
September 28, 2012 request.
Rufin argues that the trial court erred in concluding that the search was
adequate. She contends that because Maehara received the original August 15,
2012 request, and the forwarded Rufin e-mail in April 2012, he should have
known that his account was an obvious lead that must be searched