Dent v. Executive Office for the United States Attorneys
926 F. Supp. 2d 257
| D.D.C. | 2013Background
- Plaintiff seeks records under FOIA from EOUSA, FBI, and BOP concerning himself.
- EOUSA declined action and sought a large advance fee for a complete search (~$1,428) for NYEFO records.
- FBI located ~810 pages, released 165 pages with redactions under Exemptions 2, 6, 7(C), 7(D); later released 87 pages under Exemptions 3, 5, 6, 7(C), 7(D), 7(E).
- BOP apparently did not respond or requested more specificity before processing.
- Court addresses cross-motions for summary judgment; EOUSA and BOP are not yet shown to have complied; FBI’s search and exemptions are at issue.
- Court notes fee-exhaustion issues and defers on some matters, allowing a partial, prejudicial review without final judgment on EOUSA/BOP.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff exhausted administrative remedies before filing suit | Dent exhausted or waived fees; EOUSA denial lacked proper action | Exhaustion required payment or appeal; nonpayment defeats exhaustion | Partly denied; exhaustion issues unresolved for EOUSA/BOP; summary judgment not granted on exhaustion. |
| Whether FBI search was reasonable and properly handled exemptions | Search was inadequate; records should be fully disclosed | Search reasonably calculated; exemptions apply to many records | FBI search reasonable; exemptions 7(C) and 7(D) upheld for many records; partial grant of summary judgment for FBI in part. |
| Whether Exemption 5 and related exemptions justify withholding particular records | Exemption 5 overbroad or misapplied | Exemption 5 applies to deliberative predecisional material | Denied in part without prejudice; need more showing on EOUSA/BOP and some 7(D) local grand jury material. |
| Whether Exemption 7(E) applies to disclosed techniques and procedures | 7(E) too vaguely described to withhold | 7(E) protects techniques/procedures; need detailed justification | Denied in part without prejudice; require more specific justification for withholding under 7(E). |
Key Cases Cited
- Weisberg v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 705 F.2d 1344 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (reasonableness standard for agency searches in FOIA actions)
- Truitt v. Dep’t of State, 897 F.2d 540 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (agency's search must be reasonable to sustain summary judgment)
- Landano v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 508 U.S. 165 (Supreme Court 1993) (confidential source protection under Exemption 7(D))
- Davis v. FBI, 968 F.2d 1276 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (Exemption 7(C) privacy interests balancing framework)
- Campbell v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 164 F.3d 20 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (requires probative evidence of express confidentiality when invoking 7(D))
- Baker & Hostetler LLP v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, 473 F.3d 312 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (reasonableness of search and disclosure in FOIA context)