Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. U.S. Dep't of Justice

• Decision Date: 08 June 2012
• Docket Number: Civil Case No. 11–592 (RJL).
• Citation: 870 F.Supp.2d 70
• Parties: CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON, Plaintiff, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

870 F.Supp.2d 70

CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON, Plaintiff,

v.U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendant.

Civil Case No. 11–592 (RJL).

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

June 8, 2012.

Anne L. Weismann, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, David L. Sobel, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

Karen Bloom, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

RICHARD J. LEON, District Judge.

Plaintiff, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (“CREW”), brings this action against the U.S. Department of Justice (“defendant” or “DOJ”) under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, et seq., seeking records from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), a component of the DOJ. Before the Court are defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. # 9] and plaintiff's Cross–Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Dkt. # 12]. Upon consideration of the parties' pleadings, relevant law, and the entire record herein, the defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and plaintiff's Cross–Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is DENIED.

BACKGROUND¹

Pursuant to FOIA, CREW requested from the FBI “any witness statements, investigation reports, prosecution memoranda, and Federal Bureau of Investigation (‘FBI’) 302 reports related to [the Department's] investigation of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, ... includ[ing] ... [the Department's] investigation of relationships between Mr. Delay” and various other individuals and organizations.² Compl. ¶ 6 [Dkt. # 1] (alterations in original); Def.'s Statement of Mat. Facts (“Def.'s SOF”) [Dkt. # 10–2] 11. The FBI responded, neither confirming nor denying whether it possessed responsive records, and informed CREW that it could not release records regarding a third party without “express authorization and consent of the third party, proof that the third party was deceased, or a clear demonstration that the public interest in disclosure outweighed the third party's personal privacy interest and that a significant public benefit would result from disclosure of the requested records.” Def.'s Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of its Mot. for Summ. J. (“Def.'s Mot.”) [Dkt. # 10–1] at 4 ³; Ex. D to Def.'s Mot. [Dkt. # 9–5] at 1; Def.'s SOF ¶ 2. CREW provided neither an authorization of third-party consent nor evidence of death. Ex. D to Def.'s Mot. at 1; Def.'s Mot. at 9; Declaration of David M. Hardy (“Hardy Decl.”) [Dkt. # 9–3], Ex. 3 to Def.'s Mot., ¶¶ 7, 10. Therefore, finding no “public justification for release,” the FBI withheld any responsive records pursuant to the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, and Exemptions 6 and 7(C) of FOIA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(b)(6), (b)(7)(C). Ex. D to Def.'s Mot. at 1. Defendant additionally withheld the records pursuant to Exemptions 2, 3, 7(A), 7(D) and 7(E), 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(b). See Def.'s Mot. at 26–30, 32–35, 42–45. Plaintiff appealed this decision on November 9, 2010, Compl. ¶ 17, and filed the present action on March 22, 2011, Hardy Decl. ¶ 10.

On August 25, 2011, defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing that it properly withheld the records pursuant to various FOIA exemptions. Def.'s Mot. at 2. On September 22, 2011, plaintiff filed its Cross–Motion for Partial Summary Judgment seeking “an order requiring DOJ to disclose [the] responsive records.” Pl.'s Mot. at 1. Currently the only “records that remain at issue in this case are the ‘FD–302 and FD–302 inserts' and ‘Investigative Materials/Reports' maintained by the FBI.” ⁴ Pl.'s Mot. at 5–6. For the reasons that follow, the Court finds that the defendant properly withheld these records and thus GRANTS the defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

“When assessing a motion for summary judgment under FOIA, the Court shall determine the matter de novo.” Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 598 F.Supp.2d 93, 95 (D.D.C.2009) (citing 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B)). Summary judgment shall be granted when the movant demonstrates “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). In a FOIA action, the Court may award summary judgment based solely on information provided in affidavits or declarations if they “describe the documents and the justifications for nondisclosure with reasonably specific detail, demonstrate that the information withheld logically falls within the claimed exemption, and are not controverted by either contrary evidence in the record nor by evidence of agency bad faith.” Military Audit Project v. Casey, 656 F.2d 724, 738 (D.C.Cir.1981). Such affidavits or declarations “are accorded a presumption of good faith, which cannot be rebutted by purely speculative claims about the existence and discoverability of other documents.” SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197, 1200 (D.C.Cir.1991) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “Ultimately, an agency's justification for invoking a FOIA exemption is sufficient if it appears logical or plausible.” Larson v. Dep't of State, 565 F.3d 857, 862 (D.C.Cir.2009) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff, pursuant to FOIA, seeks documents related to the DOJ's investigation of Tom DeLay (“Mr. DeLay”) and alleges that defendant improperly withheld responsive documents under various FOIA exemptions. Plaintiff contends that the documents requested involve a matter of substantial public interest that outweighs any privacy interest in the contents of the records. Specifically, plaintiff argues that Mr. DeLay's privacy interest is diminished because he was a public official and he publicly acknowledged that he was the subject of a DOJ investigation. However, defendant contends that despite Mr. Delay's admissions, he did not waive his interest as to the details of the investigation. Defendant argues that it conducted an adequate search in response to plaintiff's requests and properly withheld its responsive documents under FOIA exemptions 2, 3, 6, 7(A), 7(C), 7(D), and 7(E). Unfortunately for the plaintiff, I agree with the defendant and, for the reasons that follow, GRANT defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.

Under FOIA, “upon any request for records which (i) reasonably describes such records and (ii) is made in accordance with published rules ..., [an agency] shall make the records promptly available to any person.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A). Congress has exempted nine categories of documents from the disclosure requirement, but, because there is a “strong presumption in favor of disclosure,” Nat'l Ass'n of Home Builders v. Norton, 309 F.3d 26, 32 (D.C.Cir.2002) (quoting U.S. Dep't of State v. Ray, 502 U.S. 164, 173, 112 S.Ct. 541, 116 L.Ed.2d 526 (1991)), the exemptions “are to be ‘narrowly construed,’ ” id. (quoting Dep't of Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 361, 96 S.Ct. 1592, 48 L.Ed.2d 11 (1976)). Here, defendant asserts the protection of seven FOIA exemptions: Exemptions 2, 3, 6, 7(A), 7(C), 7(D), and 7(E). Under the law of our Circuit, “[i]f an agency's statements supporting exemption contain reasonable specificity of detail as to demonstrate that the withheld information logically falls within the claimed exemption and evidence in the record does not suggest otherwise, ... the court should not conduct a more detailed inquiry.” Larson, 565 F.3d at 865.

I. FOIA Exemptions 6 and 7(C)

Both Exemption 6 and Exemption 7(C) protect an individual's privacy interest when balanced against the public interest in disclosure. Exemption 6 protects “personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6). Exemption 7(C) excludes “records of information compiled for law enforcement purposes ... to the extent that production of such law enforcement records or information ... could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” Id. § 552(b)(7)(C). Thus, in determining the applicability of Exemptions 6 and 7(C), the Court must balance the interests advanced by FOIA's disclosure requirements against the privacy interests of the individuals mentioned in the records. Beck v. Dep't of Justice, 997 F.2d 1489, 1491 (D.C.Cir.1993). Because Exemption 7(C) “establishes a lower bar [than Exemption 6] for withholding material,” ACLU v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 655 F.3d 1, 6 (D.C.Cir.2011), the Court will focus its analysis on whether the records were properly withheld under Exemption 7(C), see Adionser v. Dep't of Justice, 811 F.Supp.2d 284, 298 n. 15 (D.D.C.2011) (“[T]he analysis under both [Exemption 6 or Exemption 7(C) ] is ... the same.”). Plaintiff concedes “that the requested records were ‘compiled for law enforcement purposes' within the meaning of Exemption 7.” ⁵ Pl.'s Mot. at 8 n.3 (quoting Def.'s Mot. at 12); see also5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7). Therefore, this Court need only consider the balancing of the privacy and public interests at stake and whether “the balance characteristically tips in” favor of exemption to justify defendant's categorical withholding under Exemptions 6 and 7(C).⁶Nation Magazine, Wash. Bureau v. U.S. Customs Serv., 71 F.3d 885, 893–94 (D.C.Cir.1995) (quoting U.S. Dep't of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of Press, 489 U.S. 749, 776, 109 S.Ct. 1468, 103 L.Ed.2d 774 (1989)). Here, it does!

To constitute a privacy interest under FOIA, the claimed interest must be “substantial”—that is, “anything greater than a de minimis privacy interest.” Multi Ag Media LLC v. Dep't of Agric., 515 F.3d 1224, 1229–30 (D.C.Cir.2008) (citing Nat'l Ass'n of Retired Fed. Emps. v. Horner, 879 F.2d 873, 874 (D.C.Cir.1989)). Generally, “individuals have a strong interest in not being associated unwarrantedly with alleged criminal activity,” Stern v. FBI, 737 F.2d 84, 91–92 (D.C.Cir.1984); see also Fund for Constitutional Gov't v....