Miller v. United States Department of Justice
872 F. Supp. 2d 12
D.D.C.2012Background
- FOIA action by Charles Miller against DOJ seeking records about him from FBIHQ and other DOJ components.
- Initial FBIHQ response (2004) released 191 pages redacted under Exemptions 7(C) and 7(D); withheld 62 pages under Exemption 3.
- Plaintiff unsuccessfully appealed to OIP; filed suit in June 2005.
- Following suit, FBIHQ conducted a second search, releasing 63 pages (public) and 323 pages (redacted) under Exemptions 1, 2, 5, 6, 7(C), 7(D), 7(E), 7(F).
- Some responsive documents originated with other agencies (ATF, DIA, DEA, DOD, State, Army) and were referred or forwarded for direct response; 312 pages were sent to another agency with disposition not explained.
- Court previously granted in part and denied in part defendant’s initial motion; in 2012 DOJ supplemented the record and continued to withhold under additional exemptions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Miller exhausted administrative remedies before suit. | Exhaustion occurred; nonpayment of fees should not bar suit. | Nonpayment of fees could bar jurisdiction. | Court concluded exhaustion principles satisfied; nonpayment did not strip jurisdiction and litigation proceeded on the merits. |
| Whether Air Force Document Number One is properly withheld under Exemption 1. | Document should be partially disclosed except source identity. | Document properly classified; full withholding appropriate. | Exemption 1 applied; document properly withheld in full. |
| Whether FBIHQ Main File 245-HQ-657 is properly withheld under Exemption 3. | Title III exemptions should permit release where public domain considerations apply. | Title III information properly withheld under Exemption 3. | Exemption 3 valid; documents remain withheld. |
| Whether State Department documents (including F72A and others) are properly withheld under Exemption 5 and 7(C)/(D). | Public interest favors disclosure; privacy interests are outweighed. | Exemptions 5 and 7(C)/(D) justify withholding; documents are deliberative or privacy-protective. | Exemption 5 and 7(C)/(D) properly invoked; documents withheld accordingly. |
| Whether NADDIS and TECS numbers are properly withheld under Exemption 7(E) and related exemptions. | Disclosures could reveal techniques; some numbers should be released. | Numbers reveal techniques and could facilitate circumvention; withheld. | Exemption 7(E) applies; numbers properly withheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beck v. DOJ, 997 F.2d 1489 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (privacy/public interest balancing guidance for Exemption 7(C))
- Church of Scientology of Cal., Inc. v. Turner, 662 F.2d 784 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (opinion on detailed Vaughn-style disclosures for Exemption 3/7)
- Davis v. DOJ, 968 F.2d 1276 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (privacy vs. public interest; de novo review under Exemption 7(C))
- Mead Data Cent., Inc. v. Dep’t of the Air Force, 566 F.2d 242 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (standard for agency affidavits and de novo review of exemptions)
- Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (established the Vaughn index principle for Exemption 7 disclosure)