822 F. Supp. 2d 12
D.D.C.2011Background
- CREW, a FOIA requester, sought records from the BOP and DOJ Criminal Division regarding interviews with Jack Abramoff while jailed.
- DOJ produced some responsive records but redacted portions under Exemptions 6 and 7(C), asserting privacy interests and law enforcement considerations.
- CREW filed suit seeking disclosure and a declaratory judgment that DOJ violated FOIA and an injunction to compel production.
- DOJ delivered documents for in camera review and argued the searches were adequate and redactions proper.
- The Court analyzes (a) the adequacy of the BOP and Criminal Division searches, (b) the propriety of redactions under Exemptions 6 and 7(C), and (c) the scope of public interest in the disclosed materials.
- The court grants DOJ summary judgment, denying CREW’s cross-motion for partial summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BOP's search was adequate under FOIA. | CREW contends searches were deficient. | DOJ asserts the search was reasonably calculated to uncover responsive records. | Yes; BOP's search was adequate. |
| Whether Criminal Division's search was adequate. | CREW argues the Division failed to locate responsive records. | DOJ maintains searches targeted offices most likely to have records. | Yes; Criminal Division's search was adequate. |
| Whether redactions under Exemptions 6 and 7(C) were proper. | CREW argues redactions were overbroad and improperly withheld. | DOJ contends redactions were narrowly tailored to protect privacy interests. | Yes for Exemption 6; Exemption 7(C) not reached. |
| Whether the disclosures already made satisfy the public interest in FOIA. | CREW claims a strong public interest in DOJ/DOJ-related conduct. | Public interest satisfied by released materials showing whether media access was restricted. | Public interest satisfied; remaining redacted data not required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press v. FBI, 489 U.S. 749 (1989) (FOIA exemptions narrowly construed; public interest in openness vs. private privacy factors)
- Washington Post Co. v. Dept. of State, 456 U.S. 595 (1982) (privacy balancing under Exemption 6)
- Oglesby v. U.S. Dep't of Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C.Cir. 1990) (adequacy of agency search must be shown; affidavits can be probative)
- Nation Magazine, Wash. Bureau v. U.S. Customs Serv., 71 F.3d 885 (D.C.Cir. 1995) (need for detailed affidavits showing search scope)
- Defenders of Wildlife v. U.S. Border Patrol, 623 F. Supp. 2d 83 (D.D.C. 2009) (presumption of good faith for agency affidavits; evidence required to rebut)
- Horner v. Nat'l Ass'n of Retired Federal Employees, 879 F.2d 873 (D.C.Cir. 1989) (privacy interests; balancing test under Exemption 6)
- Lepelletier v. FDIC, 164 F.3d 37 (D.C.Cir. 1999) (privacy vs. public interest; narrow tailoring of redactions)
- Horowitz v. Peace Corps, 428 F.3d 271 (D.C.Cir. 2005) (broad interpretation of privacy interests under FOIA)
- Brown v. DOJ, 742 F. Supp.2d 126 (D.D.C. 2010) (agency affidavits presumed valid; rebuttal requires more)