Dalal v. United States Dep't of Justice

• Decision Date: 21 November 2022
• Docket Number: Civil Action 16-1040 (TJK)
• Parties: AAKASH DALAL, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

1

AAKASH DALAL, Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 16-1040 (TJK)

United States District Court, District of Columbia

November 21, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

TIMOTHY J. KELLY United States District Judge

Aakash Dalal, serving a 35-year state sentence for his role in attacks on New Jersey synagogues and a rabbi's home, sued Defendants, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), the Executive Office of United States Attorneys (“EOUSA”), and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”) over requests he made to them under the Freedom of Information Act, as well as requests he made to the FBI and EOUSA under the Privacy Act, for records related to his investigation and prosecution. Pending before the Court are each Defendant's motion for summary judgment and Dalal's corresponding cross-motions. For the reasons explained below, the Court will (1) grant in part and deny without prejudice in part the FBI's motion for summary judgment, and deny in part and deny without prejudice in part Dalal's cross-motion; (2) grant in part and deny without prejudice in part EOUSA's motion for summary judgment, and deny in part and deny without prejudice in part Dalal's cross motion; and (3) grant in part and deny without prejudice in part FEMA's motion for summary judgment and deny in part and deny without prejudice in part Dalal's cross-motion.

2

I. Procedural Background

A. FBI

Dalal requested records from the FBI first. He asked for documents under FOIA and the Privacy Act about his “presence at the Newark, New Jersey Field Office,” including logs, documents, reports, and video surveillance of the lobby and parking lot. ECF No. 1-1 at 2. Relatedly, he also sought logs reflecting the presence of two other individuals at the same field office on the same date. Id. About six months later, he made a second request under FOIA, seeking documents “reflecting corruption within the FBI”-specifically, the personnel file of FBI Special Agent Corey Coleman, who worked on his case, and any records relating to Special Agent Coleman's work with an individual, Wendel Stewart, who Dalal believed was an FBI informant. ECF No. 6 ¶ 16 (“Am. Compl.”); see ECF No. 32 at 5-6. Two months later, Dalal made his third request under FOIA and the Privacy Act, seeking all records relating to himself. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 20-21; ECF No. 32 at 7-8.

After the FBI denied his requests and appeals, Dalal sued. ECF No. 1. The Court then ordered the FBI to produce all non-exempt, responsive records and a Vaughn index. See Minute Order of Oct. 27, 2016. The FBI released 210 pages of responsive records in full or in part and withheld 604 records in full. ECF No. 32 at 9. Then the FBI released a second round of documents, disclosing 154 out of 202 pages in full or in part, including some previously withheld material. Id. Later, the FBI released one DVD containing video records. Id. The next month, the FBI reviewed 220 pages and one CD and released 48 pages in full or part. Id. at 10. Soon after that, the FBI told Dalal that it was withholding in full all remaining responsive material. Id. The FBI then moved for summary judgment, ECF No. 32, and Dalal cross-moved for the same, ECF No. 46.^[1]

3

B. EOUSA

Dalal also submitted a request to EOUSA under FOIA and the Privacy Act seeking all records maintained by EOUSA about himself. Am. Compl. ¶ 24. EOUSA responded by informing Dalal that no responsive records could be located within the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey. Id. ¶ 26. After Dalal sued, the Court ordered EOUSA to produce to him all nonexempt, responsive records and a Vaughn index. See Minute Order of Oct. 27, 2016. EOUSA ultimately released in full 513 pages of records. ECF No. 27-1 ¶ 6 (“Second Luczynski Decl.”).

EOUSA then moved for summary judgment, along with FEMA. ECF No. 14. EOUSA later withdrew from the motion because it identified additional records responsive to Dalal's request. ECF No. 23 at 1. It ultimately provided him with an additional 68 pages of records in full and informed him that it was withholding 38 pages in full. Second Luczynski Decl. ¶ 7. EOUSA then filed a new motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 27, and Dalal cross-moved, ECF No. 40.

C. FEMA

Dalal submitted four FOIA requests to FEMA seeking documents about federal security grants to various synagogues, churches, and other organizations and entities. ECF No. 1-1 at 52, 57-58, 63-64. FEMA made two productions before Dalal sued and two shortly afterward. ECF No. 14-2 ¶¶ 7-12 (“Neuschaefer Decl.”). In total, FEMA located 1,330 responsive pages and a spreadsheet, of which it released 780 pages in full and 550 with redactions. Neuschaefer Decl. ¶ 13. FEMA eventually moved for summary judgment, ECF No. 14,^[2] and Dalal cross-moved, ECF No. 16.^[3]

4

II. Legal Standard

“Summary judgment is appropriately granted when, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movants and drawing all reasonable inferences accordingly, no reasonable jury could reach a verdict in their favor.” Lopez v. Council on Am.-Islamic Rels. Action Network, Inc., 826 F.3d 492, 496 (D.C. Cir. 2016). “The evidence presented must show ‘that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.'” Id. (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a)). “Where the nonmoving party is proceeding pro se, courts in this jurisdiction will construe the non-moving party's filings liberally.” Cunningham v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 40 F.Supp.3d 71, 82 (D.D.C. 2014), aff'd, No. 14-5112, 2014 WL 5838164 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 21, 2014). “However, a pro se litigant still has the burden of establishing more than ‘[t]he mere existence of a scintilla of evidence' in support of [her] position.” Id. (first alteration in original) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986)).

“In the FOIA context, a district court reviewing a motion for summary judgment conducts a de novo review of the record, and the responding federal agency bears the burden of proving that it has complied with its obligations under the FOIA.” MacLeod v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., No. 15-cv-1792 (KBJ), 2017 WL 4220398, at *6 (D.D.C. Sept. 21, 2017) (citing 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B)); see also Cable News Network, Inc. v. FBI, 271 F.Supp.3d 108, 111 (D.D.C. 2017) (“Unlike the review of other agency action that must be upheld if supported by substantial evidence and not arbitrary or capricious, the FOIA expressly places the burden on the agency to sustain its action.” (cleaned up)). Indeed, “consistent with D.C. Circuit precedent,” judges in this Circuit have “proceeded to review the agencies' facts and evidence to determine whether summary judgment in favor of the agency defendants is warranted despite the lack of a coherent opposition

5

from the plaintiff.” MacLeod, 2017 WL 4220398, at *8. “[T]he Court may . . . treat the [agency]'s factual proffers as conceded, but it must address the [agency]'s legal arguments on their merits.” King v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 245 F.Supp.3d 153, 158 (D.D.C. 2017).

HI. Analysis

Dalal claims that FOIA mandates the disclosure of all three Defendants' withholdings. He also argues that two Defendants-the FBI and EOUSA-must produce responsive records under the Privacy Act. When a plaintiff requests documents under both FOIA and the Privacy Act, the responding agency must show “that the documents fall within some exemption under each Act.” Martin v. Off. of Special Couns., 819 F.2d 1181, 1184 (D.C. Cir. 1987). “If a FOIA exemption covers the documents, but a Privacy Act exemption does not, the documents must be released under the Privacy Act; if a Privacy Act exemption but not a FOIA exemption applies, the documents must be released under FOIA.” Id. Thus, the Court will consider his arguments under each statute in turn.

A. Privacy Act

Under the Privacy Act, “[e]ach agency that maintains a system of records shall,” on the request of “any individual to gain access to his record or to any information pertaining to him which is contained in the system, permit him . . . to review the record and have a copy made of all or any portion thereof in a form comprehensible to him.” 5 U.S.C. § 522a(d)(1). “When a plaintiff challenges an agency's withholding of documents under the Privacy Act, the court determines de novo whether the withholding was proper, and the burden is on the agency to sustain its action.” Barouch v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 962 F.Supp.2d 30, 66 (D.D.C. 2013).

The FBI and EOUSA both claim that records responsive to Dalal's requests are exempt under Privacy Act Exemption J(2). The Court agrees. Exemption J(2) protects from disclosure systems of records “maintained by an agency or component thereof which performs as its principal

6

function any activity pertaining to the enforcement of criminal laws, including police efforts to prevent, control, or reduce crime or to apprehend criminals.” 5 U.S.C. § 552a(j)(2). Agencies may promulgate rules identifying such record systems. Id. § 552a(j). Here, the FBI records responsive to Dalal's requests all came from the FBI's Criminal Records System (“CRS”), ECF No. 32-1 (“Second Hardy Decl.”) ¶ 54, and the FBI has exempted records maintained in CRS, see 28 C.F.R. § 16.96. As for the EOUSA records, Dalal's “entire request pertain[ed] to criminal investigations,” so responsive records “were necessarily compiled for law enforcement purposes.” Second Luczynski Decl. ¶ 11. On top of that, EOUSA has exempted U.S. Attorney's Office criminal case files from disclosure. See 28 C.F.R. § 16.81(a)(1). The Court is therefore satisfied that the agencies have met their burden to show that Exemption J(2) “applies to any responsive records covered by the Privacy Act” and grants their motions for summary judgment on the same ground. Boehm v. FBI, 948 F.Supp.2d 9, 18 n. 2 (D.D.C. 2013).

B. FOIA

FOIA “requires federal...