Pinson v. U.S. Dep't of Justice

Decision Date29 March 2017
Docket NumberCivil Action No.: 12–1872 (RC)
Citation245 F.Supp.3d 225
Parties Jeremy PINSON, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Columbia

Theodore C. Whitehouse, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

Damon William Taaffe, Eric Joseph Young, Theresa Ekeoma Dike, Carl Ezekiel Ross, Jesse Dyer Stewart, U.S. Attorney's Office for the District Of Columbia, Washington, DC, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, United States District Judge

GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' SECOND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff Jeremy Pinson, a federal inmate proceeding pro se , filed multiple Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") requests seeking records from various components of the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ"). In addition to releasing a number of records, the DOJ asked Pinson to clarify some of her1 records requests, told her that it could not find records responsive to some of her requests, and informed her that some of the records she sought were exempt from disclosure by law. Pinson filed a complaint challenging some of these determinations and alleging that the DOJ improperly withheld records.

In a prior opinion the Court granted in part and denied in part the DOJ's first request for summary judgment as to the claims against the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"). See Defs.' Mot. Partial Summ. J., ECF No. 137; Memorandum Opinion ("Mem. Op."), ECF No. 276; Pinson v. U.S. Dep't of Justice , 177 F.Supp.3d 56 (D.D.C. 2016).

Now before the Court is the DOJ's second motion for summary judgment as to the remaining twelve FOIA requests.2 See Defs.' 2d Mot. Partial Summ. J. Respect FBI ("Defs.' Mot. Partial Summ. J."), ECF No. 300. The DOJ argues that the FBI conducted an adequate search and made proper withholdings pursuant to FOIA exemptions for each of Pinson's requests. See Defs.' Mem. P. & A., ECF No. 300–2. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants in part and denies in part the DOJ's second motion for summary judgment as to the FBI.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. FOIA Requests 1199153, 1217900, and 1217901

In her response to the DOJ's most recent motion for summary judgment, Pinson stipulated that summary judgment in favor of the DOJ was appropriate as to FOIA Requests 1199153, 1217900, and 1217901. Pl.'s Resp. Opp'n FBI Mot. Summ. J ("Pl.'s Opp'n") at 1, ECF No. 313. The Court therefore grants the DOJ summary judgment with respect to its responses to FOIA Requests Nos. 1199153, 1217900, and 1217901.

B. Request No. 1178465

On November 21, 2011, Pinson submitted a request to the FBI for records "produced as a result of the visit by [two] FBI Agents on Nov. 1, 2011 to the U.S. Penitentiary Max in Florence, Colorado who spoke to me and took notes of my answers to their questions." 2d Hardy Decl. Ex. D, ECF No. 137–3. The FBI acknowledged the request and assigned the request number 1178465. 2d Hardy Decl. ¶ 11 & Ex. E. The FBI released three pages with redactions pursuant to the Privacy Act Exemption (j)(2) and FOIA Exemptions 6 and 7(C). 2d Hardy Decl. ¶ 12 & Ex. F.

The Court previously denied the DOJ summary judgment on this document because the DOJ could not establish that Pinson had received the FBI's response. See Mem. Op. at 30–31. Pursuant to the Court's order, the DOJ re-sent the original release letter to Pinson on April 29, 2016.

Order, ECF No. 275 at 2; 3d Hardy Decl. ¶ 5 & Ex. B, ECF No. 302. The DOJ now moves for summary judgment on the grounds that its search was adequate and that it produced to Pinson all responsive records after properly withholding some records under FOIA Exemption 7(C).3 See Defs.' Mot. Partial Summ. J. at 2.

C. Request No. 1199194

In August 2012, Pinson submitted a request to the FBI for records "regarding investigations of the California Aryan Brotherhood." See 2d Hardy Decl. Ex. Q; Corr. 2d Am. Compl. at 6, ECF No. 32. As with other requests, she requested "no more than two hours search time and 100 pages of information in this request." 2d Hardy Decl. ¶ 28. The FBI acknowledged receipt of the request and assigned the request number 1199194. 2d Hardy Decl. ¶ 29 & Ex. R. The FBI then informed Pinson that the information requested on the California Aryan Brotherhood could be accessed free of charge online at the FBI's Vault.4 2d Hardy Decl. ¶ 30 & Ex. S.

The Court previously denied summary judgment because the DOJ could not establish that Pinson had received a response from the FBI concerning this request. See Mem. Op. at 30–31. The Court's previous opinion did not contemplate that the FBI had attempted to transmit any records to Pinson.

The DOJ sent Pinson two letters referring to Request No. 1199194 subsequent to the Court's prior opinion. 3d Hardy Decl. Ex. B & C. The DOJ's most recent declaration states first that "[t]he responsive records pertaining to the California Aryan Brotherhood are located on the FBI's Online Webpage, the Vault." 3d Hardy Decl. ¶ 7. The declaration continues: "[t]he FBI re-reviewed the publically available documents and determined that additional segregable information could be released; therefore, it reprocessed the records and released it to plaintiff on July 22, 2016." 3d Hardy Decl. ¶ 7. The DOJ now moves for summary judgment on the grounds that its search was adequate and that it produced to Pinson all responsive records after properly withholding some records pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 3 and 7(C).5 See Defs.' Mot. Partial Summ. J. at 2.

D. Request No. 1199202

In August 2012, Pinson submitted a request to the FBI for records "regarding investigations of the California Mexican Mafia," to which the FBI assigned the request number 1199202. See 2d Hardy Decl. ¶¶ 24, 25 & Exs. N, O; Corr. 2d Am. Compl. at 6. As with other requests, she requested "no more than two hours search time and 100 pages of information in this request." 2d Hardy Decl. ¶ 24. By two separate letters dated September 27, 2012, the FBI both acknowledged receipt of the request and advised Pinson that the information requested on the California Mexican Mafia could be accessed free of charge online at the FBI's Vault, the FBI's electronic reading room. 2d Hardy Decl. ¶¶ 25, 26 & Exs. O, P.

The Court previously denied summary judgment because the DOJ could not establish that Pinson had received a response from the FBI on this request. SeeMem. Op. at 30–31. Pursuant to the Court's order, the DOJ re-sent the correspondence related to this request to Pinson on April 29, 2016. Order at 2; 3d Hardy Decl. ¶ 8 & Ex. B. The DOJ now moves for summary judgment on the grounds that its search was adequate. See Defs.' Mot. Partial Summ. J. at 2.

E. Request No. 1229060

On September 11, 2013, Pinson submitted a request to the FBI for records "related to a 9/10/13 FBI interview of [Pinson] at ADX Florence." 2d Hardy Decl. ¶ 124 & Ex. ZZZZ. After acknowledging receipt of the request and assigning the request number 1229060, the FBI released two pages to Pinson and withheld information pursuant to Privacy Act Exemption (j)(2) and FOIA Exemptions 6, 7(A), 7(C), 7(D), and 7(F). 2d Hardy Decl. ¶¶ 125, 126 & Exs. AAAAA, BBBBB.

The Court previously denied summary judgment because the DOJ could not establish that Pinson had received a response from the FBI concerning this request. Mem. Op. at 30 n.16. Pursuant to the Court's order, the DOJ re-sent the original release letter to Pinson on April 29, 2016. Order, ECF No. 275 at 2; 3d Hardy Decl. ¶ 11 & Ex. B. The DOJ now moves for summary judgment on the grounds that its search was adequate and that it produced to Pinson all responsive records after properly withholding some records under FOIA Exemptions 6 and 7. See Defs.' Mot. Partial Summ. J. at 2.

F. Request for Documents Relating to the Californian Mexican Mafia and Aryan Brotherhood; FD–302s of USP Victorville; and Letters to Various Wardens

In response to three of Pinson's requests, the FBI concluded that the requests were not specific enough to permit it to search its records. The affected requests were (1) Pinson's request for all documents "concerning the activities of the California Mexican Mafia and Aryan brotherhood gangs within federal prisons generated since 2007," 2d Hardy Decl. ¶ 150 & Ex. KKKKK,6 (2) Pinson's request for "all information, specifically Form–302[s], produced during investigation of inmate homicides at the U.S. Penitentiary in Victorville, California between 2004 and 2012," 2d Hardy Decl. ¶ 129 & Ex. CCCCC; Corr. 2d Am. Compl. at 7; and (3) Pinson's request for "production of all letters written by [the FBI] in California, Colorado to the Wardens of Federal Correctional Complex or institutions in Florence, CO or/and Victorville, CA [and/or Coleman] for any reason from 2008 to the present," 2d Hardy Decl. ¶ 147 & Ex. IIIII.

The FBI asserted that none of these requests were formulated with sufficient detail to permit a search of its records. 2d Hardy Decl. ¶¶ 150–51; 2d Hardy Decl. ¶¶ 130–31 & Ex. LLLLL; 2d Hardy Decl. ¶ 148 & Ex. JJJJJ. The DOJ was previously denied summary judgment as to each of these three requests because it could not establish that Pinson had received any of the three responses from the FBI. See Mem. Op. at 31–32. In accordance with the Court's order, the DOJ re-sent the original correspondence related to these requests to Pinson on April 29, 2016. See 3d Hardy Decl. ¶¶ 12, 13, 14 & Exs. B, D. These letters each stated that the requests did "not contain enough descriptive information to permit a search," and asked Pinson to "please provide us with more specific information." See 3d Hardy Decl. Exs. B, D; 2d Hardy Decl. Exs. JJJJJ, LLLLL.

Pinson acknowledges receiving the letters relating to the homicide investigations and letters to wardens, but contends that they did not ask her to clarify her request. See Pinson Decl. ¶ 12, ECF No. 313. The DOJ now again moves for summary judgment on all three requests on the grounds that its search was adequate. See Defs.' ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • 100Reporters LLC v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, Civil Action No.: 14–1264 (RC)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • June 13, 2018
    ...to withhold information if the justification for invoking a FOIA exemption "appears ‘logical’ or plausible.' " Pinson v. DOJ , 245 F.Supp.3d 225, 239 (D.D.C. 2017) (quoting Wolf v. CIA , 473 F.3d 370, 374–75 (D.C. Cir. 2007) ). Nonetheless, "exemptions from disclosure must be narrowly const......
  • SAI v. Transp. Sec. Admin., Civil Action No. 14–403 (RDM)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • September 25, 2018
    ...Cir. 1978) ). In contrast, "[b]road sweeping requests lacking specificity are not sufficient." Id. ; see also Pinson v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 245 F.Supp.3d 225, 244 (D.D.C. 2017) (same); Tereshchuk v. Bureau of Prisons , 67 F.Supp.3d 441, 454 (D.D.C. 2014) (same); Sack v. CIA , 53 F.Supp.3......
  • Sai v. Transp. Sec. Admin.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • May 24, 2018
    ...Cir. 1978)). In contrast, "[b]road sweeping requests lacking specificity are not sufficient." Id.; see also Pinson v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 245 F. Supp. 3d 225, 244 (D.D.C. 2017) (same); Tereshchuk v. Bureau of Prisons, 67 F. Supp. 3d 441, 454 (D.D.C. 2014) (same); Sack v. CIA, 53 F. Supp.......
  • Hunton & Williams LLP v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • September 27, 2018
    ...withhold information if the justification for invoking a FOIA exemption "appears ‘logical’ or ‘plausible.’ " Pinson v. U.S. Dep't of Justice , 245 F.Supp.3d 225, 239 (D.D.C. 2017) (quoting Wolf v. CIA , 473 F.3d 370, 374–75 (D.C.Cir. 2007) ). Nonetheless, "exemptions from disclosure must be......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Preliminary investigation
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Handling Federal Discovery - 2021 Contents
    • July 31, 2021
    ...F. Supp. 3d 326, 354 (D.D.C. 2017) (documents properly withheld under exemption 7(a) and (c)); but see, Pinson v. United States DOJ , 245 F. Supp. 3d 225, none (D.D.C. 2017) (Exemption 7(a) invocation denied); see also, Chiquita Brands Int’l, Inc. v. SEC , 420 U.S. App. D.C. 44, 55, 805 F.3......
  • Preliminary investigation
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Handling Federal Discovery
    • May 1, 2022
    ...F. Supp. 3d 326, 354 (D.D.C. 2017) (documents properly withheld under exemption 7(a) and (c)); but see, Pinson v. United States DOJ , 245 F. Supp. 3d 225, none (D.D.C. 2017) (Exemption 7(a) invocation denied); see also, Chiquita Brands Int’l, Inc. v. SEC , 420 U.S. App. D.C. 44, 55, 805 F.3......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT