Labow v. U.S. Department of Justice
278 F. Supp. 3d 431
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- In March 2011 Labow submitted a FOIA request to the FBI for "any records pertaining to him." After administrative appeal, he sued; the FBI produced many pages but withheld material under FOIA Exemptions 1, 3, 6, and 7.
- The district court (Labow I) originally granted summary judgment to the FBI on all issues. The D.C. Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded limited issues concerning Exemption 3 withholdings under the Pen Register Act and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) (Labow II).
- On remand the FBI provided updated declarations and the Court ordered in camera review of disputed documents; the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment and Labow moved for reconsideration under Rule 54(b).
- The FBI contended it properly withheld (a) a single sentence under the Pen Register Act because disclosure would reveal the target/results of a pen register, and (b) 35 pages under Rule 6(e) because they were grand-jury-related (subpoenas, returns, and related FBI discussions).
- The Court denied Labow’s Rule 54(b) motion, granted summary judgment to the FBI on the Pen Register Act withholding and on most Rule 6(e) withholdings after in camera review, but ordered one document (Labow-777) disclosed in part because the FBI did not adequately justify withholding its body.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of Pen Register Act as Exemption 3 | Pen Register Act only shields pen register orders themselves, not identical information elsewhere | Act protects information that would reveal the pen register target/results even if not in the sealed order | The Court held the withheld single sentence would reveal pen register target/results and is properly withheld under the Act |
| Rule 6(e) as Exemption 3 basis for withholding documents | Withheld documents must on their face reveal they are grand-jury materials; many withheld items do not necessarily do so | Documents (subpoenas, returns, and FBI discussions) would reveal grand jury targets/direction and thus are protected absolutely by Rule 6(e) | After in camera review, the Court held most contested materials were properly withheld under Rule 6(e), except Labow-777 (partial disclosure ordered) |
| Timing / reconsideration under Rule 54(b) | Appellate remand undermines finality; district court should revisit prior rulings | Rule 54(b) is not an appropriate vehicle here; courts seldom revisit prior rulings absent extraordinary circumstances | Court denied reconsideration: Labow failed to show manifest injustice or change warranting relief |
| Timeliness of asserting alternative exemptions (e.g., Exemption 7(E)) | N/A | FBI sought to assert Exemption 7(E) now over some material | Court rejected late assertion of Exemption 7(E) as untimely |
Key Cases Cited
- Labow v. United States Dep't of Justice, 831 F.3d 523 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (D.C. Cir. decision affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding Exemption 3 issues)
- Labow v. U.S. Department of Justice, 66 F. Supp. 3d 104 (D.D.C. 2014) (district court opinion previously granting summary judgment to the FBI)
- Milner v. Dep't of Navy, 562 U.S. 562 (2011) (FOIA's purpose to permit access to official information)
- Fund for Constitutional Gov't v. Nat'l Archives & Records Serv., 656 F.2d 856 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (Rule 6(e) qualifies as an Exemption 3 statute)
- Mead Data Cent., Inc. v. Dep't of Air Force, 566 F.2d 242 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (agency must provide relatively detailed justification for FOIA withholdings)