11 F. Supp. 3d 7
D.D.C.2014Background
- Murphy filed a FOIA request; EOUSA withheld certain records, invoking FOIA exemption 3 (grand jury material).
- In December 2013 the Court granted in part and denied in part summary judgment, ordering release of certain information “if . . . contained in an agency record.”
- Both parties moved for reconsideration; the Court ordered the disputed unredacted records submitted for in camera review and stayed any release.
- The Court reviewed the in camera submissions and a supporting agency declaration addressing why disclosure of grand jury convening times could reveal secret aspects of investigations.
- The Court found the records were grand jury forms exempt under FOIA exemption 3 and that non-exempt information was inextricably intertwined with exempt material, preventing meaningful segregation.
- The Court granted defendant’s motion for reconsideration, vacated the prior release order, denied plaintiff’s motion, and entered judgment accordingly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court overlooked evidence and should amend its summary-judgment order | Murphy contended the Court overlooked his affidavit and reliance on the Privacy Act and challenged the adequacy of the agency declaration/search | EOUSA argued the Privacy Act does not bar FOIA disclosure and that its declaration and search were adequate; it supplied in camera material justifying exemption 3 withholding | Denied — Court found no basis to amend; Privacy Act does not override FOIA; prior criticisms were already addressed |
| Whether the withheld records are exempt under FOIA exemption 3 as grand jury material | Murphy argued documents should be released (or were improperly withheld) | EOUSA submitted unredacted records in camera and asserted exemption 3 protection because disclosure (e.g., convening times) could reveal secret grand jury aspects | Granted for EOUSA — Court found records are exemption 3 grand jury materials and non-exempt content is inextricably intertwined, so withholding proper |
| Whether any non-exempt portions can be segregated and released | Murphy implied redacted release or segregation would suffice | EOUSA maintained segregation would yield little informational value and could risk revealing exempt information | Denied — Court held segregation impracticable; editing would produce little value and risk disclosure |
| Whether prior order directing release should be vacated | Murphy sought enforcement of prior order | EOUSA moved for reconsideration and submitted in camera justification | Vacated — Court granted EOUSA’s reconsideration and vacated the release directive |
Key Cases Cited
- Campbell v. United States Dep't of Justice, 231 F. Supp. 2d 1 (discussion of Rule 54(b) reconsideration standard)
- Childers v. Slater, 197 F.R.D. 185 (discussion of interlocutory reconsideration principles)
- Zeigler v. Potter, 555 F. Supp. 2d 126 (standards for granting reconsideration of interlocutory orders)
- Keystone Tobacco Co. v. U.S. Tobacco Co., 217 F.R.D. 235 (same)
- Greentree v. United States Customs Serv., 674 F.2d 74 (Privacy Act does not bar FOIA disclosures required under FOIA)
- Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Defense, 715 F.3d 937 (agency justification for FOIA exemption sufficient if logical or plausible)
- ACLU v. U.S. Dep’t of Defense, 628 F.3d 612 (standards on agency FOIA justifications)
- Mays v. DEA, 234 F.3d 1324 (non-exempt material inextricably intertwined with exempt material may be withheld)
- Morgan v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 923 F.2d 195 (elements required to show improper withholding under FOIA)