475 F.Supp.3d 334
S.D.N.Y.2020Background
- Plaintiff Delfino Garcia Gonzalez filed FOIA requests to USCIS and ICE seeking records about his interactions with ICE and HSI to use in ongoing immigration/asylum proceedings. USCIS produced records; ICE (through ERO and HSI) conducted multi-stage searches and produced/redacted responsive records.
- ICE/ERO searched EARM, CIS, and EAGLE databases using the plaintiff's identifiers; HSI searched ICM then conducted manual paper-file searches at its New York field office, locating 81 responsive pages.
- ICE initially withheld the 81 HSI pages in full under FOIA Exemptions 6, 7(C), 7(E), and 7(F); after litigation the agency released only dates from those pages.
- Plaintiff challenged (a) adequacy of ICE/HSI searches, (b) ICE’s invocation of Exemptions 7(E) and 7(F) for the 81 pages, (c) failure to segregate non-exempt material, and (d) the government’s use of ex parte/in camera submissions (moved to strike or compel disclosure).
- The government submitted public and sealed (ex parte/in camera) declarations and a Vaughn index explaining searches, withholdings, and segregability.
- The Court denied plaintiff’s motions, accepted the sealed submissions for in camera review, held the searches adequate, found Exemptions 7(E) and 7(F) properly invoked, found only dates were reasonably segregable, and granted the government summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of search | Searches were too narrow (insufficient databases, no search of drives/emails/other units) | ICE/ERO/HSI used reasonable, expertise-driven searches of the systems likely to contain responsive records and conducted manual paper-file searches in NY when warranted | Search was reasonably calculated and adequate; summary judgment for government |
| Use of ex parte / in camera submissions | Government's sealed submissions should be struck or disclosed; court should review underlying 81 pages in camera | Sealed declarations were necessary to explain sensitive law-enforcement justifications without revealing withheld information; public record + sealed submissions suffice | Motion to strike denied; court appropriately considered ex parte/in camera material and declined further in camera review of the underlying pages |
| FOIA Exemption 7(E) (law‑enforcement techniques/guidelines) | Plaintiff contends 7(E) does not justify withholding the pages in full | Withheld material contains law-enforcement-sensitive techniques, internal case codes, URLs, and PII whose disclosure could reveal investigative methods or enable circumvention | 7(E) properly applied to the 81 pages |
| FOIA Exemption 7(F) & segregability (safety of individuals; partial disclosure) | Some non-exempt identifiers (titles, dates, names) could be segregated and disclosed | Disclosure of identifying information would endanger ICE personnel and third parties; only dates were reasonably segregable and produced | 7(F) properly applied; segregability review was adequate — only dates were reasonably segregable and were released; remaining material withheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden and standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (materiality and genuine dispute standard for summary judgment)
- Carney v. United States Dep't of Justice, 19 F.3d 807 (agency affidavits in FOIA cases entitled to presumption of good faith)
- Wilner v. National Security Agency, 592 F.3d 60 (limits on in camera review and FOIA secrecy concerns)
- Allard K. Lowenstein Int'l Human Rights Project v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 626 F.3d 678 (interpretation of Exemption 7(E))
- John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp., 493 U.S. 146 (threshold that records must be compiled for law enforcement purposes)
- Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (Vaughn index requirement)
- National Archives & Records Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157 (no FOIA protective-order mechanism to give requester exclusive access to withheld material)