302 F. Supp. 3d 109
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- Plaintiffs William W. Dutton and Judicial Watch submitted FOIA and Privacy Act requests (Oct 30, 2014) seeking records "concerning, regarding, or relating to William Wesley Dutton" from DOJ OIG and the FBI.
- OIG searched its IDMS, produced 12 pages (with partial redactions) and withheld 2 pages under Exemptions 6, 7(C), and 7(E); it also referred some documents to the FBI.
- FBI searched its Central Records System (CRS) using ACS/Sentinel/UNI (and ELSUR via those systems), eventually identifying 1,100 pages: 6 released in full, 79 partially released, 1,015 withheld under FOIA exemptions and Privacy Act (j)(2).
- Plaintiffs challenged adequacy of the agencies’ searches (arguing use of informant code names and additional databases), the invocation of multiple FOIA exemptions, and alleged failure to segregate non-exempt material.
- The Court reviewed public and ex parte, in camera declarations, found the agencies’ search descriptions and Vaughn index sufficiently detailed, and concluded searches were reasonably calculated to uncover responsive records; exemptions and segregability determinations were upheld.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of FBI search | FBI should have searched informant code-name systems and other databases; failure to locate specific consent form shows inadequacy | FBI searched CRS via ACS/Sentinel/UNI (including ELSUR via these systems), used variations of name, and reopened search after OIG referral; in camera declarations explain additional searching | FBI search adequate; affidavit detail and in camera review show search reasonably calculated to find responsive records |
| Adequacy of OIG search | OIG may use pseudonyms for confidential sources and failed to search relevant systems | OIG searched IDMS, contacted El Paso and Dallas offices, and searched relevant offices; OIG does not use code-name filing system | OIG search adequate; declarations show comprehensive searches and plaintiffs’ claim is speculative |
| Withholding under Exemptions 6 and 7(C) (privacy) | Withholdings (including some pages withheld in full) unlikely to contain only identifying info; plaintiffs argue insufficient segregability | FBI/OIG provided Vaughn explanations; withheld pages consisted of pictures/PII or were singularly identifying so partial release would nonetheless identify third parties | Withholdings under Exemptions 6 and 7(C) upheld; court satisfied all reasonably segregable information was released |
| Withholding under Exemption 7(E) (law enforcement techniques) | Some documents (e.g., database printouts) could be partially redacted and released; OIG redactions were conclusory for investigative-step descriptions | Agencies explained how disclosure of techniques, informant program details, database identifiers, payment methods, etc., would risk circumvention; re-review confirmed some items are protected database printouts | Exemption 7(E) properly applied; agencies showed logical risk of circumvention and adequately segregated releasable content |
Key Cases Cited
- Oglesby v. U.S. Dep't of Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir.) (requirements for reasonably detailed affidavit describing search)
- Valencia-Lucena v. U.S. Coast Guard, 180 F.3d 321 (D.C. Cir.) (search must be "reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents")
- Truitt v. Dep't of State, 897 F.2d 540 (D.C. Cir.) (search standard; relevance of searching other systems)
- SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir.) (agency affidavits presumed good faith; plaintiffs cannot rely on pure speculation)
- Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of Press, 489 U.S. 749 (1989) (privacy analysis under FOIA)
- Abramson v. FBI, 456 U.S. 615 (1982) (FOIA exemptions to be narrowly construed)
- ACLU v. U.S. Dep't of Def., 628 F.3d 612 (D.C. Cir.) (affidavit detail can support withholding)
- Juarez v. Dep't of Justice, 518 F.3d 54 (D.C. Cir.) (courts may rely on government affidavits showing why withheld material cannot be further segregated)