Davis v. United States Federal Bureau of Investigation
Civil Action No. 2018-0086
| D.D.C. | Jul 3, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Donovan Davis Jr., a federal inmate convicted in a Ponzi-scheme prosecution, submitted FOIA and Privacy Act requests to the FBI, Secret Service, and EOUSA seeking all records under his name or identifiers relating to his arrest, investigation, and prosecution.
- FBI searched its Central Records System (CRS) using multiple name formulations, DOB, SSN, and phonetic matches; it identified 149 potentially responsive pages, released 72, later supplemented with a few more pages; OIP affirmed FBI's response on administrative appeal.
- Secret Service routed the request to its Office of Investigations and the Orlando Field Office (the investigative lead) and to its Investigative Support Division; it produced 228 pages (74 full, 154 redacted) and withheld 79 pages in full; some materials were referred to EOUSA and IRS.
- Plaintiff alleged the Secret Service returned a seized hard drive to his wife after wiping it and contends the drive had been erased only after the FOIA request, implying possible destruction of evidence responsive to his request.
- Both agencies invoked FOIA exemptions (Exemptions 3, 6, 7(C), 7(D), and 7(E)) for various withholdings and submitted declarations describing searches and justifications; the Court evaluates adequacy of searches, legitimacy of withholdings, and segregability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of FBI search | FBI relied on CRS index search, which may miss records if indexed with different terms; FBI should have consulted Davis or searched agent files directly | FBI used comprehensive CRS index searches (phonetic, exact, and identifier-based), later supplemented; index searches are standard and reasonable | FBI search was adequate: declaration detailed methods and returned case files tied to Davis, rebutting speculations |
| Adequacy of Secret Service search | Service failed to locate a referenced grand jury subpoena; search not sufficiently detailed | Service searched Orlando Field Office and ISD using name, DOB, SSN; produced many responsive pages; declarations sufficiently describe search | Secret Service search was adequate: production and declarations show reasonable efforts; speculative claims insufficient |
| Withholdings under Exemption 3 (statutory) | Plaintiff did not meaningfully challenge Exemption 3 assertions | FBI: BSA bars disclosure of reports/records of reports; Secret Service: Rule 6(e) grand jury secrecy applies | Exemption 3 applied: BSA supported FBI withholdings; Rule 6(e) justified Secret Service redactions identifying grand-jury matters |
| Withholdings under Exemptions 6 and 7(C) (privacy) | Plaintiff offered no public-interest justification for disclosure | Agencies: identifying info of agents/third parties would invade privacy and risk safety/effectiveness; no public interest shown | Withholdings proper: privacy interests outweigh nonexistent public interest; names of agents and third parties withheld |
| Withholdings under Exemption 7(D) (confidential sources) | Plaintiff argued FBI’s confidentiality claim lacked specific factual support and relied on a factual error about prosecution use | FBI showed source provided detailed info in a criminal investigation and confidentiality could be implied by circumstances; disclosure could risk retaliation and chill cooperation | Withholding upheld: FBI satisfied implied-confidentiality standard; plaintiff’s arguments unavailing |
| Withholdings under Exemption 7(E) (techniques) | Plaintiff silent | FBI explained disclosure would reveal non-public investigative techniques, case-file identifiers, secure addresses, and a specific sensitive technique, risking circumvention | Withholdings upheld: Exemption 7(E)’s low bar met and risk of circumvention shown |
| Alleged destruction/wiping of hard drive | Plaintiff contends Secret Service wiped a seized hard drive after FOIA request, implying improper destruction of responsive records | Service says drive belonged to Davis and standard operating procedure is to wipe personal electronic evidence before return; no indication drive contained agency-created responsive records | No FOIA violation: plaintiff failed to show the drive contained agency records responsive to his FOIA request, so Chambers theory of post-request destruction does not apply |
| Segregability | N/A | Agencies conducted line-by-line reviews and explained why some pages are withheld in full as inextricably intertwined or wholly exempt | Segregability satisfied: agencies reasonably explained inability to reasonably segregate nonexempt material |
Key Cases Cited
- Ancient Coin Collectors Guild v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 641 F.3d 504 (D.C. Cir.) (agency must show search reasonably calculated to uncover responsive records)
- Oglesby v. U.S. Dep’t of Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (good-faith effort standard and value of detailed declarations describing searches)
- SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (agency declarations accorded presumption of good faith; speculative allegations insufficient)
- Weisberg v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 745 F.2d 1476 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (focus on adequacy of search, not whether other documents might exist)
- U.S. Dep’t of Justice v. Landano, 508 U.S. 165 (1993) (standards for inferring confidentiality of criminal sources)
- Mayer Brown LLP v. IRS, 562 F.3d 1190 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (Exemption 7(E) low bar; need to demonstrate how disclosure might risk circumvention)
- Chambers v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 568 F.3d 998 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (agency cannot intentionally destroy documents after FOIA request)
- Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (Vaughn index and requirement that withholdings be justified)