139 F. Supp. 3d 352
D.D.C.2015Background
- Jett, a 2012 candidate for Florida's 3rd Congressional District, alleged intermediaries of his opponent offered benefits to drop out; he reported this to the FBI, prompting an investigation.
- During the investigation, Jett recorded calls and was told to wear a wire for a meeting including the opponent, intermediaries, and a high-ranking House member; the plan to wire was rejected by the Public Corruption Unit.
- The FBI closed the investigation after Jett disclosed it and after he publicly accused the opponent of bribery in 2012.
- Jett later FOIA-requested FBI records related to the investigation; the FBI produced 66 pages with redactions, invoking FOIA exemptions 6, 7(C), and 7(E).
- Jett sued for summary judgment to challenge the search adequacy, redactions, and withholding of duplicative records; the court granted in part and denied in part.
- The court conducted in camera review of redacted material and ordered further action on search adequacy, including a CRS/ELSUR search strategy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Exemption 7(C) properly shields identities in records. | Jett argues privacy interests do not override public interest. | FBI asserts strong privacy interests for third parties and law-enforcement personnel. | Exemption 7(C) proper; privacy interests outweigh public interest in this case. |
| Whether Exemption 7(E) justification was adequate for redactions. | Hardy declaration insufficient to show specific risk of circumvention. | Redactions relate to investigation strategies; disclosure could risk circumvention. | Exemption 7(E) justified after in camera review; some information withheld appropriately. |
| Whether materials could be segregated and non-exempt portions disclosed. | Non-exempt portions should be disclosed. | Non-exempt portions were properly segregated and disclosed where possible. | Court found proper segregation and disclosure of non-exempt portions. |
| Whether the FBI's search was adequate, including the CRS/ELSUR search. | FBI should search using third parties and ELSUR; CRS search was insufficient. | CRS search adequate; Privacy Act waived third-party searches; ELSUR not initially needed. | Search was inadequate for not using ELSUR; ordered broader CRS search including named individuals. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press v. DOJ, 489 F.3d 74 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (FOIA balancing; exemptions to disclosure)
- Schrecker v. DOJ, 349 F.3d 657 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (Exemption 7(C) privacy interests; categorical rule limitations)
- CREW v. DOJ, 746 F.3d 1082 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (public-interest in exposing corruption; case-by-case weighing; some privacy presumption)
- Davis v. DOJ, 968 F.2d 1276 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (privacy interests vs. public disclosure; balancing guidance)
- SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (agency withholding with reasonably detailed rationale; de novo review)
- Mayer Brown LLP v. IRS, 562 F.3d 1190 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (Exemption 7(E) scope; risk of circumvention; low bar for explanation)
- Oglesby v. DoJ, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (adequacy of search; reasonable methodology)
- Valencia-Lucena v. U.S. Coast Guard, 180 F.3d 321 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (duty to search where records may be located)
- Crooker v. U.S. State Dep’t, 628 F.2d 9 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (disclosure of records already produced may render further search moot)