Matthews v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation
| Decision Date | 09 December 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 15-569 (RDM) |
| Citation | 575 F.Supp.3d 166 |
| Parties | Alexander Otis MATTHEWS, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Alexander Otis Matthews, Arlington, VA, Pro Se.
Claire M. Whitaker, Doris Denise Coles-Huff, Fred Elmore Haynes, U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, Diana Viggiano Valdivia, DOJ-USAO, Civil Division, Washington, DC, for Defendant.
Alexander Otis Matthews, proceeding pro se , brings this Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq. , action against the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"). Matthews pleaded guilty to bank fraud and wire fraud in July 2011. Dkt. 64 at 2. In March 2013, he submitted a FOIA request to the FBI, seeking all records about himself. Dkt. 53-5 at 2–3 (Hardy Decl. ¶ 5). The FBI processed some 671 pages of responsive documents, Dkt. 53-6 at 2–3 (Argall Decl. ¶ 4), before filing its first motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 53.
The Court granted that motion in part and denied it in part. Dkt. 64. As relevant here, the Court concluded that the FBI had failed to show that the FOIA waiver that Matthews executed as part of his plea agreement was enforceable, id. at 24–29 ), and failed adequately to justify some of its remaining withholdings under Exemptions 6, 7(C), and 7(D), id. at 14–21. The Court, accordingly, ordered that the FBI (1) produce the non-exempt, responsive documents that it had previously withheld based on the FOIA waiver in Matthews's plea agreement, and (2) provide additional information to justify its withholdings under Exemptions 6, 7(C), and 7(D). Id. at 29.
The FBI has renewed its motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 89. The FBI maintains that it has now adequately justified those withholdings for which the Court found its prior showing insufficient. Dkt. 89-1 at 11–22. The FBI separately argues that Plaintiff has failed to pay the fees associated with certain releases and has therefore failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to those releases. Id. at 22–24.
The Court will GRANT in part and DENY in part the FBI's renewed motion for summary judgment. Although the Court concludes that some of the FBI's withholdings are supported by the current record, the FBI's submissions remain insufficient, in spite of this Court's prior admonitions, to justify many of its withholdings. To be sure, the agency may well be able to support its invocation of the various exemptions at issue. But, unfortunately, this is a case in which the government's repeated failure to substantiate its claims has needlessly created more work for all involved. And, as for the FBI's exhaustion argument, it is undisputed that Matthews has, in fact, paid the relevant processing fees for three releases since the Court's prior opinion—the July, August, and September 2019 releases. Because the FBI does not argue that Matthews delay in making those payments constituted an incurable default, its exhaustion argument is unavailing with respect to those releases.
Because this is not the Court's first opinion in this matter, see Dkt. 35 (Mem. Op. & Order); Dkt. 44 (Mem. Op. & Order); Dkt. 64 (Mem. Op. & Order), the Court will recount only those facts necessary to resolve the FBI's most recent motion.
In July 2011, Matthews pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud and one count of bank fraud in response to a consolidated indictment in the Eastern District of Virginia. See Dkt. 24-1 at 57–58 (Plea Agreement ¶¶ 1a–1b); Dkt. 53-4 at 2 (Faulconer Decl. ¶¶ 2b–2c, 2e–2f). As part of that plea agreement, Matthews waived his right to file a FOIA request for documents relating to his prosecution. Dkt. 24-1 at 62 (Plea Agreement ¶ 6). In October 2011, Matthews was sentenced to a 120-month term of incarceration and ordered to pay $5 million in restitution. Dkt. 53-4 at 3 (Faulconer Decl. ¶ 2g). He later filed a petition for collateral relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, alleging that his counsel had failed to disclose an early plea offer made by the government. See Dkt. 59. The sentencing court denied that petition.1
On March 1, 2013, Matthews filed a FOIA request with the FBI, seeking records about himself. Dkt. 53-5 at 2–3 (Hardy Decl. ¶¶ 5–6). According to Matthews, he filed this request in hopes of supporting his claim that an Assistant United States Attorney ("AUSA") from the Eastern District of Virginia falsely represented during Matthews's § 2255 proceedings that no early plea offer was ever presented to his counsel. Dkt. 59 at 1–2. In response, the FBI processed 671 pages, releasing 35 pages in full and 272 pages in part, while withholding 364 pages in full. Dkt. 53-6 at 3–4 (Argall Decl. ¶ 4). In support of its withholdings, the FBI invoked Privacy Act Exemption (j)(2) and FOIA Exemptions 3, 5, 6, 7(C), 7(D), and 7(E). Id.
In April 2015, Matthews filed this lawsuit, challenging the adequacy of the FBI's response to his FOIA request. Dkt. 1 at 1 (Compl.). The FBI moved to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, arguing that Matthews had failed to pay his FOIA processing fees or to seek a fee waiver and thus failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Dkt. 12. The FBI subsequently notified the Court, however, that Matthews had (belatedly) paid the processing fees, Dkt. 17, and the FBI thus agreed to "process the records and release nonexempt records to Plaintiff," Dkt. 15 at 4. The Court, accordingly, denied the FBI's motion as moot. See Minute Order (Oct. 8, 2015).
In January 2016, the FBI again moved for summary judgment, Dkt. 24, arguing that Matthews was prohibited from proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), Dkt. 28 at 2. The Court agreed and dismissed Matthews's action without prejudice. Dkt. 31. Matthews, then, moved for reconsideration. Dkt. 32. Although the Court was unpersuaded by the argument that Matthews pressed, the Court modified its earlier decision to provide Matthews with the option of paying the filing fee and thus proceeding with the pending action. Dkt. 35 at 10. The Court received Matthews's filing fee in February 2018. See Receipt of Filing Fee (Feb. 21, 2018). Thereafter, the FBI filed its third motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 53.
The Court granted in part and denied in part the FBI's third motion. The Court concluded that the FBI had shown that it had conducted an adequate search, Dkt. 64 at 7–8, and that the agency properly invoked most of the exemptions upon which it relied, see id. at 9–10 (Exemption 3), id. at 10–13 (Exemption 5), id. at 21–23 (Exemption 7(E)). Two sets of exemptions required further scrutiny, however—those made under Exemption 6 and 7(C), and those made under Exemption 7(D).
Exemption 6 applies to "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), while Exemption 7(C) applies to records "compiled for law enforcement purposes" if their release "could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy," id. § 552(b)(7)(C). The Court had little trouble concluding that Exemption 7(C) shielded certain of the records withheld by the FBI, such as "the names and identifying information" of private individuals and agency employees identified within "Matthews's main investigative file." Dkt. 64 at 15. But the disputed records also included Matthews's "197 file," which the FBI created in response to a Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA") claim Matthews filed against the FBI. See Dkt. 53-6 at 23 (Argall Decl. ¶ 44 n.19). The FBI failed to demonstrate that the file was "compiled for law enforcement purposes," 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7), and, thus, failed to carry its burden under Exemption 7(C). Dkt. 64 at 15–16. And, although Exemption 6 applies more broadly to "personnel[,] medical files[,] and similar files," 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6), the FBI's reliance on that exemption fell short as well. In particular, the FBI's motion and supporting material lacked sufficient information to allow the Court to determine whether the disclosure of the personal information in that file "would constituent a clearly unwarranted privacy invasion." Dkt. 64 at 16 (quoting Jud. Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of State , 282 F. Supp. 3d 36, 49–50 (D.D.C. 2017) ). The FBI's evidence did not, for example, "offer any details about which categories of individuals appeared in the 197 file, or the types of records from which the names and identifying information were redacted." Id. at 16–17. Because the Court could not "ascertain whether the release of these names and identifying information would compromise a substantial privacy interest," the Court denied "summary judgment as to the FBI's withholdings based on Exemption 6 in the 197 file." Id. at 167. The Court did, however, "provide the agency with an opportunity to make a more particularized showing." Id.
A similar flaw precluded the Court from granting the FBI's motion with respect to a subset of withholdings under Exemption 7(D). That exemption protects "records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes" the release of which "could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source" or "information furnished by a confidential source," 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(D). Invoking Exemption 7(D), the FBI withheld documents relating to an informant who agreed to an informal proffer, along with documents containing the identifying information about seven other individuals who provided "non-public information" and who were "in positions to have unique access to and/or knowledge" about the criminal investigation which led to Matthews's charges. Dkt. 53-6 at 33–34 (Argall ...
To continue reading
Request your trial