Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington v. United States Department of Justice, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 6964

In 2004 the FBI investigated Jack Abramoff and related public corruption; several convictions and guilty pleas followed, and inquiries touched on Tom DeLay; DeLay was ultimately told DOJ would not charge him.
CREW filed a FOIA request (Oct 2010) to the FBI seeking records about the DeLay investigation and associated individuals; DOJ withheld material invoking multiple FOIA exemptions.
On initial district-court review DOJ claimed broad categorical withholding under Exemption 7(A) and other exemptions; this Court (CREW I) reversed and remanded for particularized review, recognizing a strong public interest in disclosure about how DOJ/FBI conducted the investigation.
On remand the FBI conducted a new search, released 124 pages (with redactions) and withheld 204 pages in full, invoking Exemptions 3, 5, 6, 7(C), 7(D), and 7(E); the district court again granted summary judgment to DOJ.
On this appeal CREW challenged (1) the district court’s acceptance of the Government’s belated invocation of Exemption 5 for certain FBI communications and (2) blanket redaction of third-party names under Exemptions 6 and 7(C).
The D.C. Circuit reversed: it held the Government’s Exemption 5 claim untimely under the Maydak timeliness rule and remanded for a particularized Exemption 6/7(C) balancing for individuals whose privacy interests were diminished by public disclosure.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether DOJ may invoke Exemption 5 on remand though it did not assert it in the original proceedings	Maydak timeliness rule bars untimely exemption; DOJ waived Exemption 5	DOJ contended Exemption 5 was raised earlier by another DOJ component and should be considered	Exemption 5 invocation by FBI was untimely and barred (Maydak applies); Exemption 5 cannot shield the contested records
Whether names/PII of third parties (other than DeLay/Abramoff) may be withheld under Exemptions 6 and 7(C) without particularized analysis	CREW argued many names should be disclosed to illuminate DOJ/FBI decisionmaking; public interest is weighty	DOJ defended broad redactions citing privacy of investigatory subjects and witnesses	Court reversed summary judgment and remanded: for individuals with diminished privacy (e.g., publicly identified/convicted), the government must undergo a particularized Exemption 7(C)/6 balancing; CREW must show disclosure likely advances public interest

Maydak v. DOJ, 218 F.3d 760 (D.C. Cir.) (untimeliness rule requires government to assert exemptions initially; limited exceptions)
CREW v. DOJ (CREW I), 746 F.3d 1082 (D.C. Cir.) (reversed categorical withholding; emphasized public interest in scrutiny of FBI/DOJ investigatory/prosecutorial decisions)
CREW v. DOJ (CREW II), 174 F. Supp. 3d 415 (D.D.C.) (district-court opinion on remand addressing new search, releases, and redactions)
ACLU v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 655 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir.) (strong presumption of disclosure; exemptions narrowly construed)
SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir.) (names of individuals not publicly implicated in investigations are categorically exempt)
Nat’l Archives & Records Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157 (U.S.) (plaintiff bears burden to show disclosure likely advances public interest)
Reporters Comm. For Freedom of the Press v. DOJ, 489 U.S. 749 (U.S.) (privacy interests survive public disclosure but may be diminished)
Wash. Post Co. v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 795 F.2d 205 (D.C. Cir.) (timeliness doctrine and policy reasons for requiring prompt assertion of exemptions)
Stern v. FBI, 737 F.2d 84 (D.C. Cir.) (disfavoring categorical rules for Exemption 7(C) balancing)