941 F.3d 567
D.C. Cir.2019Background
- Institute for Justice submitted a FOIA request for “all records contained in” AFTRAK (the IRS Asset Forfeiture Tracking and Retrieval System) after following an IRS lead that identified AFTRAK as the relevant source.
- The IRS resisted, arguing AFTRAK is a "web-based application" that merely generates reports (not a database), and therefore its "contents" are not FOIA "records." After suit, the IRS produced a heavily redacted PDF "Open/Closed Asset Report," which it described as AFTRAK's most comprehensive standard report.
- The district court granted summary judgment largely for the IRS, holding the Open/Closed Report satisfied the FOIA request, upholding redactions under Exemptions 7(A) and 7(C), and deeming the plaintiff to have forfeited an objection to Exemption 7(F) redactions.
- The D.C. Circuit reversed and remanded, holding material factual disputes exist about whether the produced report contains all AFTRAK records and whether AFTRAK is a database that stores FOIA records.
- The court also vacated the district court’s blanket application of Exemption 7(A) to entire rows and found the district court abused its discretion in deeming the plaintiff’s challenge to Exemption 7(F) forfeited; it left intact the unchallenged 7(C) redactions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Open/Closed Report satisfy a FOIA request for “all records contained in” AFTRAK? | The Report is not shown to include all AFTRAK fields/records; prior IRS productions and communications show missing columns. | The Report is the most comprehensive standard AFTRAK output and thus satisfies the request. | Reversed: disputed material facts exist; the Record may not substitute for a proper search. |
| Is AFTRAK a FOIA "database" (i.e., does it contain agency records subject to FOIA)? | AFTRAK is described in IRS manuals and other official documents as a database/asset inventory system into which staff enter data. | AFTRAK is only a web-based application that aggregates and displays data from other sources, not a database of records. | Reversed: factual dispute remains; classification is an intermediate fact for remand. |
| Must the FOIA request be construed to include records "accessible by" AFTRAK (not only those literally "contained in" it)? | Requesters need not know storage details; a request that reasonably describes sought records should be construed liberally to include accessible records if the agency knew what was sought. | The request was limited to records "contained in" AFTRAK; agency need not search other locations absent clear scope. | Reversed: agency must clarify scope and cannot ignore leads it "cannot help but know"; remand to determine proper scope and adequacy. |
| Were the IRS’s Exemption 7(A) and 7(F) redactions proper? | 7(A): IRS applied 7(A) categorically to entire rows without showing harm for each withheld category; 7(F): Institute timely challenged IRS’s later broad use of 7(F). | IRS argued disclosure could interfere with investigations and withheld rows/fields accordingly; initially invoked 7(F) only for specific data. | Reversed in part: 7(A) blanket row redactions insufficient—agency must tailor and show non-segregable harm; district court erred finding 7(F) objection forfeited. 7(C) redactions left undisturbed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Yeager v. Drug Enforcement Administration, 678 F.2d 315 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (computerized databases treated like traditional FOIA records)
- Nation Magazine v. U.S. Customs Serv., 71 F.3d 885 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (agencies must construe FOIA requests liberally and ascertain scope)
- Aguiar v. Drug Enforcement Administration, 865 F.3d 730 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (summary judgment standard and need for sufficient declarant detail)
- Ancient Coin Collectors Guild v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 641 F.3d 504 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (agency must show search reasonably calculated to locate responsive records)
- Bartko v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 898 F.3d 51 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (obligation to disclose reasonably segregable non-exempt portions and to quantify deletions)
- Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 746 F.3d 1082 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (scope and use of Exemption 7(A))
- Crooker v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms, 789 F.2d 64 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (rejecting blanket withholding for ongoing investigations)
- Kowalczyk v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 73 F.3d 386 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (agency need not guess at locations not mentioned, but cannot ignore obvious leads)