American Association of Women, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Justice
167 F. Supp. 3d 136
D.D.C.2016Background
- Plaintiff American Association of Women filed a FOIA request with the FBI seeking records (emails, investigative case summary, electronic communications) relating to an LA Times article about an FBI investigation of L.A. County jail abuse.
- FBI denied the request under multiple FOIA exemptions (primarily 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A)) and the DOJ Office of Information Policy upheld the decision; plaintiff sued for disclosure.
- Defendant moved for summary judgment claiming adequate search and that withheld records fall within exemptions 1, 3, 6, 7(C), 7(D), 7(E), and 7(A); plaintiff cross-moved arguing the exemptions were waived by official acknowledgment (the LA Times article).
- The agency described three categories of withheld material: evidentiary/investigative materials, administrative/coordinative materials, and reporting communications, and submitted declarations (Hardy) supporting exemptions and lack of segregable releasable portions.
- The FBI also asserted classified material and intelligence sources/methods protection; it issued a Glomar-type refusal to confirm official disclosure to the LA Times.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of search | FBI search insufficiently explained (implicitly) | FBI conducted a reasonable, good-faith search using appropriate methods | Search was adequate; summary judgment for defendant on search ground |
| Exemption 7(A): ongoing law enforcement interference | Redaction/withholding waived by LA Times disclosures | Records compiled for law enforcement; disclosure would interfere with ongoing investigations/prosecutions | 7(A) applies; records properly withheld |
| Official acknowledgment / waiver (Glomar) | LA Times publication shows the same information was already publicly disclosed, so exemptions are waived | No official, documented disclosure; FBI issued Glomar response and denies official acknowledgment | No official acknowledgment; plaintiff failed to meet Afshar/Fitzgibbon criteria; no waiver |
| Other exemptions (1, 3, 6, 7(C),(D),(E)) | Plaintiff largely did not contest these in detail; argued agency assertions were conclusory | Agency declarations establish classification (Exemption 1), protection of intelligence sources/methods (Exemption 3), personal privacy (6,7(C)), confidential sources (7(D)), and techniques/guidelines (7(E)) | Court deferred to agency declarations and held these exemptions properly applied |
Key Cases Cited
- Department of the Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352 (1976) (FOIA presumes disclosure unless covered by clear exemptions)
- Mapother v. Department of Justice, 3 F.3d 1533 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (elements for applying Exemption 7(A))
- Weissberg v. Department of Justice, 745 F.2d 1476 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (agency must show search reasonably calculated to uncover records)
- Perry v. Block, 684 F.2d 121 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (standard for adequacy of FOIA search)
- Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. National Sec. Agency, 678 F.3d 926 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (agency affidavits may support summary judgment if reasonably specific)
- U.S. Dep’t of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of Press, 489 U.S. 749 (1989) (Exemption 7(C) privacy standard broader than Exemption 6)
- United States Dep’t of State v. Washington Post Co., 456 U.S. 595 (1982) (Exemption 6 covers detailed government records about individuals)
- Williams v. FBI, 69 F.3d 1155 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (confidential source definition for Exemption 7(D))
- Gardels v. CIA, 689 F.2d 1100 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (Glomar responses and deference to agency declarations)
Court disposition: defendant's motion for summary judgment granted; plaintiff's cross-motion denied. Signed March 7, 2016 by Judge Royce C. Lamberth.