Corley v. Sessions
280 F. Supp. 3d 164
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Pro se plaintiff Royce Corley filed a FOIA suit against DOJ (EOUSA and FBI) seeking records about him and sex‑trafficking prosecutions; DOJ is the proper defendant.
- EOUSA produced 151 pages (58 with redactions) and withheld 265 pages in full invoking FOIA exemptions 3, 5, 7(C), and 7(D).
- The Court previously granted partial summary judgment to DOJ but left segregability as to some EOUSA records unresolved.
- DOJ submitted a supplemental Vaughn index and declaration asserting segregability and work‑product protections; the Court reviewed that index independently.
- The Court concluded EOUSA released all reasonably segregable third‑party material but found five withheld documents inadequately described as attorney work‑product and ordered DOJ to supplement the record as to those documents.
- Plaintiff’s cross‑motion for summary judgment (challenging processing) and motion to take discovery were denied as moot or unwarranted; discovery denied for lack of particularized need.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Segregability of third‑party records | Corley: EOUSA should release non‑exempt portions; identities already redacted | EOUSA: Exemptions (3,5,7(C),7(D)) protect the records and redactions were applied where feasible | Court: EOUSA produced all reasonably segregable third‑party material; summary judgment for defendant on this issue |
| Attorney work‑product withholdings | Corley: Some withheld items are investigative and improperly cloaked by privilege (points to specific Bates ranges) | EOUSA: Withheld materials are attorney work‑product (and deliberative process) prepared in anticipation of prosecution | Court: Most work‑product claims upheld, but descriptions for five documents (listed Bates ranges) are too vague; DOJ must supplement the record |
| Processing timeliness / plaintiff’s summary judgment | Corley: JMD failed to process FOIA timely; seeks relief | DOJ: Agency searches and releases moot processing challenge | Court: Motion moot because documents released; cross‑motion denied |
| Discovery / allegation of bad faith | Corley: Seeks discovery to probe alleged bad faith and privilege assertions | DOJ: Agency declarations suffice; discovery in FOIA is rare and unsupported by particularized need | Court: Denied discovery; plaintiff failed to show necessity or specific evidence of bad faith |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Exec. Office for U.S. Attorneys, 310 F.3d 771 (D.C. Cir.) (exemption justification for inextricably intertwined material and basis for withholding whole records)
- Mays v. Drug Enf't Admin., 234 F.3d 1324 (D.C. Cir.) (costly redaction and low informational value justify full withholding)
- Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Dep’t of Justice, 432 F.3d 366 (D.C. Cir.) (work‑product protection should be interpreted broadly)
- NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132 (Supreme Court) (Exemption 5 confines to materials privileged in civil discovery)
- Ellis v. United States Dep't of Justice, 110 F. Supp. 3d 99 (D.D.C.) (FOIA evidentiary burden for Exemption 5; In re Sealed Case criteria)
- Boehringer Ingelheim Pharm., Inc. v. FTC, 778 F.3d 142 (D.C. Cir.) (the "because of" test for work‑product anticipation of litigation)
- Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (Supreme Court) (foundational statement on work‑product doctrine)