951 F.3d 578
D.C. Cir.2020Background:
- May 2, 2013: Michael Evans, an inmate at FCI Gilmer, was stabbed in the dining hall with a Phillips‑head screwdriver; Evans later sued under the FTCA and §1983 alleging the screwdriver was Bureau property, but the Bureau disclaimed ownership.
- Evans submitted a FOIA request seeking (originally broad) shipping/delivery logs and, after a cost estimate, narrowed the request to records related to the pictured screwdriver and a copy of the dining‑hall surveillance video of the assault.
- The Bureau located the surveillance video but withheld it in full under FOIA Exemptions (b)(2), (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(E), and (b)(7)(F); Bureau officials reported they did not recognize the screwdriver and thus could not identify responsive records about it.
- OIP upheld the Bureau’s withholding of the video and concurred that the screwdriver requests did not reasonably identify records the agency possessed; Evans sued in district court and lost on summary judgment.
- On appeal to the D.C. Circuit (amicus appointed for Evans), the court affirmed as to the screwdriver‑related requests but vacated and remanded the grant of summary judgment for the Bureau with respect to withholding the surveillance footage under Exemptions (b)(7)(C) and (b)(7)(E), and as to segregability/technology issues.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Evans reasonably described records about the screwdriver, obligating the Bureau to search/create responsive records | Evans: request described the screwdriver and sought existing records about its source and delivery; Bureau must search and produce non‑exempt records, not answer questions | Bureau: officials do not recognize or possess records about that screwdriver; the request effectively sought answers or creation of records, not identifiable existing records | Held: Affirmed for Bureau — request did not reasonably describe records the Bureau actually possessed; agency’s efforts and sworn statements were adequate |
| Whether the Bureau may withhold the surveillance video under Exemption (b)(7)(C) (privacy) | Evans: video disclosure would not necessarily be an unwarranted privacy invasion; partial disclosure or redaction likely possible | Bureau: video contains images of ≈70 persons; release could constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy | Held: Vacated/remanded — Bureau’s affidavit was conclusory and vague (“may constitute”); insufficient specificity to sustain withholding |
| Whether the Bureau may withhold the video under Exemption (b)(7)(E) (techniques/procedures) | Evans: footage does not reveal law‑enforcement techniques or camera placement sufficient to risk circumvention; redaction/segregation possible | Bureau: release would reveal methods/locations of cameras and investigative response, enabling circumvention | Held: Vacated/remanded — affidavit lacks sufficient detail about camera placement, field of view, or techniques to support exemption on summary judgment |
| Whether any nonexempt portions of the video are segregable and whether the Bureau can technologically segregate or redact images | Evans: at least screenshots or redactions (blurring faces) are feasible; Bureau must produce reasonably segregable portions | Bureau: asserted inability to segregate images and lack of capability to isolate responsive portions | Held: Vacated/remanded — Bureau failed to explain why segregation/redaction is infeasible; must provide specific justification or court may consider in camera review |
Key Cases Cited
- Department of Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352 (U.S. 1976) (FOIA enacted to open agency action to public scrutiny)
- FBI v. Abramson, 456 U.S. 615 (U.S. 1982) (recognizing FOIA exemptions protect legitimate government/private interests)
- Kowalczyk v. Dep't of Justice, 73 F.3d 386 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (request reasonably describes records when agency can determine precisely what is sought)
- Oglesby v. U.S. Dep't of the Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (agency must show adequacy of search via reasonably detailed affidavit)
- Hayden v. Nat'l Sec. Agency/Cent. Sec. Serv., 608 F.2d 1381 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (affidavits must show with reasonable specificity why documents fall within an exemption)
- Mead Data Cent., Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Air Force, 566 F.2d 242 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (nonexempt portions must be disclosed unless inextricably intertwined)
- SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (agency affidavits that are detailed and submitted in good faith get a presumption of regularity)
- Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press v. FBI, 877 F.3d 399 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (agency bears burden to show adequacy of search and may meet it with reasonably detailed affidavit)