Al-Turki v. Dep't of Justice

• Decision Date: 30 March 2016
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 14-cv-00802-WYD-CBS
• Parties: Homaidan Al-Turki, Plaintiff, v. Department of Justice, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Colorado

175 F.Supp.3d 1153

Homaidan Al-Turki, Plaintiff,

v.Department of Justice, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 14-cv-00802-WYD-CBS

United States District Court, D. Colorado.

Signed March 30, 2016

Faisal Ahmed Salahuddin, Frank and Salahuddin LLC, Denver, CO, for Plaintiff.

Timothy Bart Jafek, U.S. Attorney's Office, Denver, CO, for Defendant.

ORDER ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Wiley Y. Daniel, Senior United States District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment which is fully briefed. By way of background, this case involves Plaintiff's request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act [“FOIA”] seeking all Federal Bureau of Investigation [“FBI”] records mentioning him. Defendant responded to Plaintiff's FOIA request by releasing some documents and claiming exemptions for others. Defendant divides its documents into two categories for purposes of the claimed exemptions: (1) exemptions for documents not related to ongoing investigation and (2) exemptions for documents related to ongoing investigations. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment explains the FOIA exemptions it relies on as to the documents and information that were withheld, and asserts that Plaintiff has been provided all responsive documents subject to FOIA and not subject to an exemption.

II. BACKGROUND

I have considered all the facts asserted in the summary judgment motion, as well as the responses and replies as to these facts, but have cited only those facts I deem most material to my ruling. As to many of the material facts asserted by Defendant, Plaintiff has responded that he is without sufficient information to admit or deny the fact. Defendant argues that this does not create a genuine issue of material fact and that the asserted fact should be admitted. There is some authority for this argument. See F.D.I.C. v. Meyer , 781 F.2d 1260, 1267 (7th Cir.1986) ; Newsom v. Big M. Transp., Inc. , No. 1:13cv58 SNLJ, 2014 WL 4978618, at *3 (E.D.Mo. Oct. 6, 2014) ; see also Conaway v. Smith , 853 F.2d 789, 794 (10th Cir.1988) (“In response to a motion for summary judgment, a party cannot rest on ignorance of facts...”). Indeed, a party is required when disputing a fact to cite to specific references in the record supporting the denial. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1) ; Practice Standards for Civil and Criminal Matters before Senior Judge Wiley Y. Daniel, § II.B.4. This makes sense in a typical case where a party who is without sufficient knowledge or information about an asserted fact could request discovery about that fact pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e).

However, I find that logic does not apply in a case such as this under FOIA, where the withheld documents purportedly implicate national security, ongoing government investigations, and other sensitive information as declared in the Declarations attached to the Motion for Summary Judgment. In that situation, the plaintiff cannot seek discovery about the documents, and is often unable to verify the truth or falsity of the facts asserted by the government. Thus, I find it improper to deem those facts admitted. Instead, I will consider the source of the facts alleged by Defendant and the level of detail provided to determine if the allegations are sufficiently supported. See Hull v. I.R.S. , 656 F.3d 1174, 1177 (10th Cir.2011) (“ ‘[a]ffidavits must show, with reasonable specificity, why the documents fall within the exemption’ and ‘will not suffice if the agency's claims are conclusory, merely reciting statutory standards, or if they are too vague or sweeping’ ”) (quotation omitted). I discuss the standard relevant to affidavits in support of the motion in more detail below.

Turning to the background facts, Plaintiff is a citizen of Saudi Arabia. He was indicted on June 9, 2005, in this Court on the following four counts: Forced Labor/Attempted Forced Labor, Document Servitude, Harboring an Alien, and a Forfeiture Allegation. (Indictment, Ex. 1 to Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s Mot. Summ. J. [“Pl.'s Resp.”]; see also United States v. Al-Turki , No. 05-cr-280-WDM, ECF No. 8.)

On August 18, 2006, Plaintiff was sentenced by a Colorado state court to 28 years to life following his conviction for various other offenses. The convictions included false imprisonment, 12 counts of unlawful sexual contact, extortion, and theft of $15,000 or more. People v. Al-Turki , 2005CR1571 (Arap. County). Plaintiff's sentence in state court was later reduced in February 2011 to 8 years to life.

On October 10, 2006, the United States' motion to dismiss the indictment against Plaintiff was granted as to the case pending in this Court. United States v. Al-Turki , No. 05-cr-280-WDM (D. Colo.).

On May 6, 2013, Plaintiff, through his attorney, requested from the FBI all documents mentioning Homaidan Al-Turki (or any variation of that spelling), born on a certain date in 1968 [“the FOIA Request”]. The documents sought in the FOIA Request included, but were not limited to, interviews, investigative reports, photographs, or summaries. The FBI denied the FOIA request. Plaintiff appealed administratively, and the administrative appeal was denied. Plaintiff then filed this case.

On October 1 and 7, 2014, the FBI released documents to Plaintiff's counsel in response to Defendant's FOIA request. The releases included documents bates labeled Al-Turki 1 to Al-Turki 726. All pages Al-Turki 1 to Al-Turki 143 were released; the remainder of the release omits certain pages but includes “Deleted Page Information Sheets” stating which pages were omitted and the exemptions claimed for those omissions. Certain information was also deleted/redacted. I requested and received a copy of Defendant's FOIA production (see Notice of Filing of Documents Released Under FOIA, ECF No. 41, filed July 17, 2015), and have reviewed those documents in connection with the summary judgment motion. I discuss the facts applicable to the specific exemptions in the sections addressing those exemptions.

III. ANALYSIS

A. Standard of Review

Summary judgment may be granted where the pleadings, depositions, discovery responses and affidavits “show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the...moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). “A fact is ‘material’ if, under the governing law, it could have an effect on the outcome of the lawsuit.” E.E.O.C. v. Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corp. , 220 F.3d 1184, 1190 (10th Cir.2000). “A dispute over a material fact is ‘genuine’ if a rational jury could find in favor of the nonmoving party on the evidence presented.” Id.

The burden of showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists is borne by the moving party. Horizon , 220 F.3d at 1190. “ ‘Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.’ ” Atl. Richfield Co. v. Farm Credit Bank of Wichita , 226 F.3d 1138, 1148 (10th Cir.2000) (quotation omitted). The court must “ ‘view the evidence and draw all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.’ ” Id. (quotation omitted). All doubts must be resolved in favor of the existence of triable issues of fact. Boren v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co. , 933 F.2d 891, 892 (10th Cir.1991).

B. FOIA Background

FOIA was passed in 1966 “to provide a public right of access, enforceable in federal court, to agency records.” Trentadue v. Integrity Comm. , 501 F.3d 1215, 1225 (10th Cir.2007). “The purpose of the Act ‘is to ensure an informed citizenry, vital to the functioning of a democratic society, needed to check against corruption and to hold the governors accountable to the governed.’ ” Id. (quotation omitted). FOIA “confers jurisdiction on the district courts ‘to enjoin the agency from withholding agency records and to order the production of any agency records improperly withheld.’ ” U.S. Dep't of Justice v. Tax Analysts , 492 U.S. 136, 142, 109 S.Ct. 2841, 106 L.Ed.2d 112 (1989) (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4) ). “Notwithstanding FOIA's aspiration of governmental transparency, Congress recognized that disclosure of certain classes of documents could harm legitimate government interests.” Trentadue , 501 F.3d at 1225–26. Nine specific exemptions were created that allow agencies to withhold otherwise responsive documents. Id. at 1226.

In considering whether information should be disclosed under FOIA, two guiding principles apply. Trentadue , 501 F.3d at 1226. “First, FOIA is to be broadly construed in favor of disclosure.” Id. “Second, its exemptions are to be narrowly circumscribed.” Id. “ ‘[A]ny reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be provided to any person requesting such record after deletion of the portions which are exempt.’ ” Id. (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 552(b) ). “ ‘To successfully challenge an agency's showing that it complied with the FOIA, the plaintiff must come forward with specific facts demonstrating that there is a genuine issue with respect to whether the agency has improperly withheld extant agency records.’ ” Carter v. Nat'l Sec. Agency , 962 F.Supp.2d 130, 135 (D.D.C.2013) (quotations omitted). “The federal agency resisting disclosure bears the burden of justifying withholding.” Trentadue , 501 F.3d at 1226.

“To satisfy its burden of proof under FOIA, an agency typically submits affidavits.” Hull , 656 F.3d at 1177. The affidavit “must contain ‘reasonably detailed descriptions of the documents and allege facts sufficient to establish an exemption.’ ” Poll v. U.S. Office of Special Counsel , No. 99–4021, 208 F.3d 226, 2000 WL 14422, at *2 (10th Cir. Oct. 14, 1999) (quotation omitted). “Summary judgment may be granted on the basis of agency affidavits if they contain reasonable specificity of detail rather than merely conclusory statements, and if they are not called into question by contradictory evidence in the record or by evidence of agency bad faith.” Gallant v. NLRB , 26 F.3d 168, 171 (D.C.Cir.1994) ; see also Hu...