Jett v. Federal Bureau of Investigation
241 F. Supp. 3d 1
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- In 2012 James Jett reported an alleged pre-election bribe and the FBI opened an investigation that included recorded calls; Jett later submitted a FOIA request seeking investigative reports, recordings, transcriptions, and asked specifically that the FBI search its Central Records System (CRS).
- The FBI initially searched the CRS using a phonetic breakdown of Jett’s name, located responsive records, produced some pages (many redacted), and withheld others under FOIA exemptions.
- The court, after initial briefing and in camera review, held the FBI’s search deficient because it had declined to search Electronic Surveillance Indices (ELSUR) and had not searched third‑party names Jett provided; the court ordered additional searches.
- The FBI later produced additional responsive materials (December 30, 2015) and submitted declarations (Third and Fourth Hardy Decls.) explaining search efforts and that the December production resulted from earlier misrouting, not the post‑order searches.
- The parties’ renewed cross‑motions raised two main disputes: whether the FBI’s searches (CRS/ACS/Sentinel) were adequate to capture ELSUR records and whether the FBI properly invoked Exemptions 6, 7(C), and 7(E) and satisfied segregability obligations for the December 30 production.
- The court found the FBI’s explanations adequate as to the withholdings and segregability for the December 30 materials but identified material inconsistencies about how ELSUR is searched (whether CRS searches via ACS/Sentinel also capture ELSUR), warranting limited discovery into FBI search capabilities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of search for responsive ELSUR records | FBI did not run separate ELSUR searches; inconsistencies show search inadequate | FBI says ACS/Sentinel searches of CRS also retrieve ELSUR; therefore searches were adequate | Discovery granted to determine whether ELSUR requires separate search; summary judgment denied on adequacy |
| Timeline / origin of Dec. 30, 2015 production | Dec. 30 production contradicts FBI’s claim of no new records after court order | FBI: Dec. 30 files were preexisting, misrouted earlier and not from post‑order searches | Court accepts FBI explanation that Dec. 30 release was late delivery, not a new post‑order search |
| Withholding under Exemptions 6 & 7(C) (privacy) | Redactions overbroad; requests in camera review | FBI invokes privacy interests of third parties and agents; balancing favors nondisclosure | FBI met burden for Exemption 7(C); redactions upheld |
| Withholding under Exemption 7(E) (techniques) and segregability | Seeks in camera review to test claims and segregability | FBI details content as investigative techniques and describes line‑by‑line segregability review | FBI met burden for Exemption 7(E); four pages withheld properly; segregability satisfied, no in camera review needed |
Key Cases Cited
- Oglesby v. U.S. Dep’t of the Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (agency must conduct search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents)
- SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (agency affidavits presumed good faith; plaintiff must show specific facts to rebut)
- Military Audit Project v. Casey, 656 F.2d 724 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (affidavits must be reasonably detailed and not contradicted to support summary judgment)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard for genuine disputes of material fact)
- Am. Civil Liberties Union v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., 628 F.3d 612 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (when affidavits provide specific information placing documents within exemption, summary judgment may follow)
- Mead Data Cent., Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of the Air Force, 566 F.2d 242 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (agency segregability obligation and limits of in camera review)
- Sussman v. U.S. Marshals Serv., 494 F.3d 1106 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (presumption that agency complied with segregability requirement)