Graff v. Federal Bureau of Investigation
822 F. Supp. 2d 23
D.D.C.2011Background
- Graff, an editor for The Washingtonian, filed FOIA requests to EOUSA (Noriega) and FBI (Younis) seeking third-party law enforcement records from 1986–1993 and 1986–1989 respectively.
- EOUSA denied Noriega request citing privacy interests and Exemptions 6/7(C); advised requester to obtain third-party authorization or death certificate or public-interest demonstration.
- FBI denied Younis request similarly, invoking privacy interests under Exemption 7(C) and refused to process without death or waiver or public-interest showing.
- Graff appealed to the DOJ Office of Information Policy; OIP affirmed EOUSA’s action on Noriega (Sept. 2009) and FBI’s initial stance on Younis.
- Graff amended his complaint (Counts II, V, VI) challenging: (1) wrongful withholding under Noriega; (2) wrongful withholding under Younis; (3) the policy requiring death/waiver/public-interest demonstration before processing third-party foreign-national requests.
- Court grants defendant summary judgment on Count VI, denies Graff cross-motion on Count VI, and remands Counts II and V for further agency balancing consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the government’s categorical rule for third-party foreign-national FOIA requests is lawful | Graff argues rule is overbroad and impermissible | DOJ/FBI contend rule is lawful under Exemption 7(C) and aligned with Nation Magazine and Reporters Committee | Lawful; rule passes Exemption 7(C) and Nation Magazine framework |
| Whether the government’s policy irrationally departs from agency policy under the APA | Policy reflects an irrational departure from official policy | Policy is consistent with agency practice and DoJ guidance | Not irrational; policy consistent; grant in part for Count VI; deny cross-motion on VI |
| Whether the Noriega and Younis search-denial decisions are ripe for summary judgment | Requests were improperly refused without balancing public and private interests | Balancing required but not completed at initial stage; records not yet properly balanced | Not ripe; remand to agencies to perform Exemption 7(C) balancing with public-interest statements from Graff |
Key Cases Cited
- National Archives and Records Administration v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157 (U.S. 2004) (public-interest burden on requester in Exemption 7(C))
- DOJ v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (U.S. 1989) (categorical rules for third-party privacy in Exemption 7(C))
- Nation Magazine v. U.S. Customs Serv., 71 F.3d 885 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (permissibility of categorical refusals; need for tailored rules)
- United States v. Landano, 508 U.S. 165 (U.S. 1993) (framework for balancing privacy vs. disclosure)
- Schrecker v. DOJ, 349 F.3d 657 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (privacy interests of third parties in Exemption 7(C))
- DOJ v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (U.S. 1989) (focus on Exemption 7(C) balancing; public-interest consideration)