Jackson v. United States Department of Justice
270 F. Supp. 3d 90
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Dominique L. Jackson submitted a FOIA request to the DOJ Criminal Division seeking Title III interception approval letters, applications, and related materials for two phone numbers used in his criminal case.
- The Criminal Division initially notified Jackson that responsive records are exempt from disclosure under FOIA Exemption 3 (statutory exemption), citing Title III/Privacy Act protections, and advised him of an appeal right to OIP.
- OIP affirmed the withholding; Jackson filed this FOIA suit pro se. The agency nevertheless searched two systems likely to contain responsive materials: the Criminal Division’s Title III request tracking system and archived employee emails (Enterprise Vault).
- The agency produced a Vaughn index showing most located records were withheld under Exemption 3 and additionally under Exemptions 5, 6, and 7(C).
- The Court found the agency’s search declaration sufficiently detailed and accorded it a presumption of good faith; the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a(j)(2))/Title III rules exempt the requested records from FOIA disclosure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of agency search | Jackson implied records were publicly disclosed in court and therefore should be locatable/produced | DOJ searched Title III tracking system and relevant attorney email archive using names/numbers and provided a Vaughn index | Search was adequate; DOJ’s declaration detailed systems, terms, and scope and is presumed in good faith |
| Applicability of FOIA Exemption 3 (statutory exemption) | Records used in court proceedings were public, so statutory nondisclosure should not apply | Records are protected by statutes (Title III and Privacy Act exemptions) that bar disclosure under Exemption 3 | Exemption 3 properly invoked because Privacy Act/Title III rules exempt Criminal Division systems used for enforcement |
| Whether court should grant summary judgment despite plaintiff’s failure to oppose | Jackson sought extensions and a stay to obtain transcripts; he did not oppose the merits after stay lifted | DOJ moved for summary judgment supported by declarations and Vaughn index | Court considered merits (Winston & Strawn) and granted summary judgment for DOJ on the record |
| Need to evaluate other FOIA exemptions cited in Vaughn index | Jackson argued materials entered public domain; sought transcripts to show disclosure | DOJ also relied on Exemptions 5, 6, 7(C) for other documents but primary basis was Exemption 3/Privacy Act | Court did not need to resolve additional exemption claims after holding Exemption 3/Privacy Act bars disclosure |
Key Cases Cited
- Fox v. Strickland, 837 F.2d 507 (D.C. Cir.) (failure to respond to dispositive motion may lead to dismissal but court must still consider merits)
- Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir.) (agency must justify withholdings in sufficient detail; Vaughn index concept)
- Oglesby v. United States Dep’t of the Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir.) (requirements for adequate FOIA search affidavit)
- Ancient Coin Collectors Guild v. United States Dep’t of State, 641 F.3d 504 (D.C. Cir.) (standard for adequacy of FOIA search)
- Valencia-Lucena v. United States Coast Guard, 180 F.3d 321 (D.C. Cir.) (review standard where record raises substantial doubt about search sufficiency)
- SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir.) (presumption of agency good faith in FOIA searches)
- Wolf v. CIA, 473 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir.) (agency justification need only be plausible/logical)
- Winston & Strawn LLP v. McLean, 843 F.3d 503 (D.C. Cir.) (summary judgment cannot be deemed conceded; merits must be considered)