Brestle v. Lappin
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87111
| D.D.C. | 2013Background
- Plaintiff Gary Brestle, a federal inmate, filed a FOIA request (May 9, 2011) seeking documents transmitted by an FCI Jesup unit secretary to case managers and SIS officers from May–Oct 2009; he sued when no timely response was received.
- BOP (through DOJ as substituted defendant) initially released 3 pages with redactions under FOIA exemptions 6 and 7(C); after litigation, BOP conducted an additional search and released 31 more pages with redactions under exemptions 6, 7(C), and 7(F).
- BOP’s FOIA paralegal (Christine Greene) explained the search process: the request was routed to current unit staff and SIS; an initial search missed the 2009 case manager but a follow-up located additional responsive material from the former case manager.
- Plaintiff challenged (1) the adequacy of BOP’s search and (2) BOP’s application of FOIA exemptions protecting third‑party identities and safety concerns, alleging BOP criminality and statutory failures to justify disclosure.
- The court found BOP’s combined searches reasonably calculated to locate responsive records and upheld withholding under exemptions 6, 7(C), and 7(F) for third‑party identifying information and safety risks.
- The court denied plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment, joinder, contempt, and fees; it held BOP’s segregability showing incomplete and ordered BOP to clarify or release non‑exempt material by a deadline.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of search | Brestle: BOP failed to search investigative files and did not act in good faith; missed documents show search unreasonable | BOP: search routed to relevant current staff and SIS; follow‑up uncovered additional responsive pages from former case manager; detailed declarations describe scope | Search adequate; summary judgment for defendant on adequacy |
| Withholding under Exemption 6 (privacy) | Brestle: third‑party privacy claims should yield when official misconduct is alleged | BOP: redactions protect staff investigator privacy; disclosure risks harassment and invasion of privacy | Withholding under Exemption 6 upheld |
| Withholding under Exemption 7(C) (law enforcement privacy) | Brestle: identities relevant to alleged BOP misconduct and retaliation; public interest in disclosure | BOP: records compiled for law enforcement; third‑party IDs stigmatize and are categorically protected absent overriding public interest | Withholding under Exemption 7(C) upheld; plaintiff failed to show overriding public interest |
| Withholding under Exemption 7(F) (safety risk) | Brestle: only he faces risk; assertion ludicrous | BOP: redactions protect cooperating individuals whose identities could endanger life/physical safety in prison context | Withholding under Exemption 7(F) upheld |
| Segregability | Brestle: agency must release non‑exempt portions | BOP: claims to have examined records but withheld large blocks; Vaughn index vague | Court found segregability showing insufficient; BOP ordered to clarify or release non‑exempt material |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard for genuine dispute of material fact)
- Weisberg v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 745 F.2d 1476 (agency must show reasonable search likely to locate responsive records)
- Perry v. Block, 684 F.2d 121 (agency affidavits that explain search scope are sufficient absent bad faith)
- United States Dep't of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (privacy interests under Exemption 7(C) and public‑interest balancing)
- National Archives and Records Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157 (requester must produce evidence of government impropriety to overcome privacy interests)
- Mays v. DEA, 234 F.3d 1324 (requester’s identity and personal stake are irrelevant to FOIA balancing)