A federal judge determined on Friday that the U.S. Department of Justice adequately searched for and disclosed records to a Colorado attorney in response to his request for documents related to former President Joe Biden’s son and brother.

In November 2020, Kevin D. Evans and his Greenwood Village law firm submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the Justice Department. Evans sought documents about Hunter Biden and James “Jim” Biden, the president’s son and brother, respectively, that addressed any foreign relationships, communications, or payments.

Evans then filed suit in March 2022, alleging the department had largely failed to produce relevant records, with the exception of 106 pages he received in March 2021.

While the challenge was pending, a Delaware jury convicted Hunter Biden of firearm-related felonies, and he pleaded guilty in Los Angeles to federal tax evasion charges. Hunter and Jim Biden also testified to the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives, where members alleged the men had unjustly enriched themselves off their family name.

Before leaving office, President Biden pardoned Hunter and James Biden for actual or potential federal offenses.

Last June, the Justice Department moved to end Evans’ lawsuit in its favor. Now run by President Donald Trump’s appointees, the department asserted that it produced everything that was relevant and disclosable. In addition to the 106 initial pages, the department provided 16 pages of partially redacted communications and chart entries. For all other materials, the department cited established justifications for withholding the information.

Specifically, the department denied an obligation to search for records in the office of Special Counsel David Weiss, who prosecuted Hunter Biden in Delaware, because the office did not exist until well after Evans filed his open records request.

“FOIA does not require an agency to continually update its searches after a reasonable cut-off date, which many courts have agreed is the date of first search,” wrote the Justice Department.

“To that, Plaintiffs say ‘so what’,” responded Evans. “These documents are undeniably within DOJ, and they are DOJ records. DOJ knows they exist.”

But in a March 27 order, U.S. District Court Judge Nina Y. Wang sided with the department, finding it had no obligation to search for records that were created after the process was set in motion.

“Nor does the Court perceive this case as especially unique, despite the notoriety of the subjects,” she wrote. “A contrary rule would create the ‘endless cycle of judicially mandated reprocessing’ that courts have sought to avoid.”

Wang, a Biden appointee, added that Evans could “easily file” a new open records request to cover any subsequent documents.

She also concluded that the Justice Department properly relied on exemptions in the law to withhold all other files, including those covered by laws governing bank records and national security, as well as provisions protecting confidential investigative details.

“Plaintiffs argue that because DOJ engaged in ‘wrongdoing … in connection with the Biden investigation,’ work product produced during the investigation cannot be privileged,” Wang wrote. “But the emails and memorandum were all generated in 2019 — during the first Trump Administration and before the special counsel investigation. More importantly, the relevant records all relate to the early stages of the investigation and do not reflect any charging decisions or ‘coordination’ between DOJ lawyers and Hunter Biden’s representatives.”

Finally, in response to Evans’ argument that some of the information about Hunter Biden was already in the public domain, Wang wrote that the “basic facts” of the criminal investigation were public knowledge, but not the specifics Evans was seeking from the government.

Evans told Colorado Politics he found it “disturbing” that the Justice Department would not search the special counsel’s records while his lawsuit was pending.

“Thus, according to the court, the DOJ and other government agencies under FOIA get to play by a separate set of rules even when the DOJ knows that responsive documents were created and exist after the date of the FOIA request,” he said. “Given the way the courts have eviscerated FOIA through overly broad application of exemptions, I am considering whether to appeal or to serve a new request.”

The case is Evans Law PLLC et al. v. U.S. Department of Justice.