340 F.Supp.3d 34
D.D.C.2018Background
- Institute for Justice (IJ) requested an AFTRAK "database dump" (2000–Mar 3, 2015) and related schema/reports under FOIA; IRS initially demanded a large fee, and IJ sued.
- IRS produced AFTRAK’s most comprehensive standard output, the Open and Closed Report (78 pages, rows = seizures, columns = data fields), as a heavily redacted PDF after concluding other export formats were infeasible.
- IJ challenged adequacy of the search/production and many redactions; the Court previously ordered supplemental explanation and limited disclosures; parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- IRS contended AFTRAK is a web application that compiles data from subsidiary databases (not a single database) and that the generated Report contains every data point responsive to IJ’s request.
- Court held IRS’s production satisfied FOIA’s search requirement (the Report contained all relevant data points) but examined whether specific redactions were justified under FOIA exemptions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IRS satisfied FOIA search obligation for AFTRAK data | IJ: AFTRAK is a database and IRS should have produced a raw database dump or searched subsidiary sources; IRS did no adequate search | IRS: AFTRAK is a web-based system that compiles from multiple sources; producing the most comprehensive standard report satisfied FOIA; other formats infeasible | Held: IRS satisfied search obligation by producing the comprehensive Open/Closed Report; no omitted data points identified |
| Whether IRS must produce additional formats (CSV/Excel) or raw schema | IJ: Request sought data in electronic formats; IRS must provide accessible machine-readable export | IRS: Other formats not readily reproducible with available tools; converting while preserving lawful redactions would require new software; PDF redaction was only feasible option | Held: IRS’s format choice (PDF report) was reasonable given technological constraints and search adequacy |
| Validity of categorical withholding under Exemption 7(A) for open investigations | IJ: Many columns (17 of 23) do not plausibly interfere with enforcement and should be segregated and released | IRS: Categorical withholding of all fields for seizures in open investigations is functionally justified to avoid revealing investigative scope or tips to targets | Held: Exemption 7(A) properly invoked categorically for assets in open investigations; IRS explained interference with sufficient specificity |
| Validity of privacy redactions under Exemptions 6/7(C) (and related disputes) | IJ: Several columns (Program Area, SEACATS, Asset Description) should be disclosed or narrowly redacted; challenges to IRS specificity | IRS: Program Area and SEACATS could be cross-referenced with public seizure notices to identify targets; Asset Description largely justified or already partially released | Held: Exemptions 7(C)/6 applied appropriately to Program Area and SEACATS; IJ waived other challenges (e.g., 7(F) argument); IRS entitled to summary judgment on remaining privacy redactions |
Key Cases Cited
- Judicial Watch, Inc. v. FBI, 522 F.3d 364 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (FOIA disclosure principles and agency duties)
- Forsham v. Harris, 445 U.S. 169 (U.S. 1980) (agency not required to create new records in response to FOIA)
- Weisberg v. Dept. of Justice, 627 F.2d 365 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (agency must show each responsive document was produced, unavailable, or exempt)
- Bevis v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 801 F.2d 1386 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (requirements for categorical withholding under Exemption 7(A))
- Roth v. DOJ, 642 F.3d 1161 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (standard for balancing privacy interests under Exemption 7(C))
- Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington v. DOJ, 746 F.3d 1082 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (categorical withholding and three-part agency obligation under Exemption 7(A))