Clemente v. Federal Bureau of Investigation
854 F. Supp. 2d 49
D.D.C.2012Background
- Clemente sued under FOIA against FBI and related agencies for unredacted Scarpa files.
- FBI located ~1,170 responsive pages; fee waiver denied initially; Clemente paid duplication fees.
- FBI released 500 pages, then 653 more; Clemente cross-moved for summary judgment; FBI supplemented Vaughn index.
- Judge Friedman previously held fee waiver, adequate search, and limited scope of certain July 2008 requests.
- In renewed proceedings, FBI reprocessed 192-page sample, released some previously redacted items; sought summary judgment.
- Court ultimately grants FBI summary judgment on search adequacy and denies remaining issues without prejudice, ordering non-sample reprocessing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of FBI search for responsive records | Search should include field offices; Campbell controls. | Regulations limit search to HQ; NY office not required. | Search adequate; NY office not required; no remand. |
| Need for reprocessing of non-sample documents | Representative sample insufficient; non-exempt info may be withheld improperly. | Bonner allows sampling; no need to reprocess whole set unless errors shown. | Non-sample documents must be reprocessed; errors found in sample justify broader review. |
| Exemption 7 handling and adequacy of Vaughn descriptions | Descriptions of redactions under Exemptions 7(C) and 7(E) inadequate to assess privacy and evasion risks. | Indexes and declarations suffice to support exemptions. | Current Vaughn index deficient; requires more detailed, individualized descriptions if renewed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Campbell v. DOJ, 164 F.3d 20 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (searches may be broader if information suggests fruitfulness)
- Fischer v. U.S. DOJ, 596 F. Supp. 2d 34 (D.D.C. 2009) (field-office requests governed by regulations)
- Bonner v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 928 F.2d 1148 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (representative sampling in FOIA exemptions testing)
- Meeropol v. Meese, 790 F.2d 942 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (sampling error rate considerations in FOIA reviews)
- Mead Data Central v. U.S. Dep’t of Air Force, 566 F.2d 242 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (non-exempt information must be segregable)
- Oglesby v. U.S. Dep’t of Army, 79 F.3d 1172 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (FOIA exemptions and detailed justification requirements)