Parker v. U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys
852 F. Supp. 2d 1
D.D.C.2012Background
- Dr. Lonnie Parker sues DOJ under FOIA alleging improper withholding of agency records and moves for summary judgment; DOJ cross-moves for summary judgment.
- Parker sought six categories of records concerning former AUSA Lesa Gail Bridges Jackson and her unauthorized practice of law; categories include license status, certifications, communications, investigations, disciplinary actions, and remedial policies.
- DOJ produced two request files and indicated no responsive records for personnel/law license category; NPRC/NARA actions followed, with limited disclosures and conflicting custody assertions.
- NARA and NPRC responses indicated records were not accessioned or not located; NARA advised pursuing DOJ Records Management Office; DOJ asserted records likely reside at NPRC but could not confirm transfer.
- DOJ refused to address category 6 (remedial measures) as vague; the court found the request clear and DOJ failed to follow FOIA procedures for unclear requests.
- Court held that DOJ’s search and declarations were insufficient, remanded for agency reconsideration, denied DOJ’s summary judgment without prejudice, denied Parker’s motion as moot, and ordered a joint status report.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the search for category 1 records adequate? | Parker contends search was inadequate and records location unclear. | DOJ asserts search efforts were adequate and records likely with NPRC; cites minimal searches. | Remanded; search failures require agency reevaluation |
| May DOJ use a Glomar response to category 2 records under Exemptions 6 and 7(C)? | Glomar response insufficient without proper demonstration of harm. | Glomar appropriate to avoid revealing existence of records under Exemptions 6/7(C). | Glomar rejected due to lack of evidence records were compiled for law enforcement purposes; cannot sustain |
| Are the disciplinary records properly exempt under Exemption 7(C) or 6? | Records should be released with privacy redactions where appropriate. | Disciplinary records implicate privacy and may be exempt under 6/7(C). | DOJ failed to prove records were for law enforcement purposes (7(C)); Exemption 6 weighing not sufficiently done |
| Has DOJ conducted proper privacy-override balancing under Exemption 6 for category 2 records? | Public interest in transparency outweighs privacy where appropriate. | Privacy interests overwhelm disclosure for personnel/disciplinary files. | Remand to perform a particularized public/private interest balancing |
| Did DOJ adequately respond to category 6 (remedial measures) request? | Request is clear and actionable; DOJ must search and disclose or justify exemptions. | Request deemed vague and not reasonably describable. | Remand; DOJ must locate responsive records or state exemptions/apparent conclusions |
Key Cases Cited
- NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214 (Supreme Court 1978) (FOIA as a balance between public right to know and government secrecy)
- FBI v. Abramson, 456 U.S. 615 (Supreme Court 1982) (FOIA exemptions are to be narrowly construed)
- Rural Housing Alliance v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 498 F.2d 73 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (Agency must show records were compiled for law enforcement purposes)
- Stern v. FBI, 737 F.2d 84 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (Disciplinary records generally not exempt under 7(C); focus on law enforcement purpose)
- Keys v. DOJ, 830 F.2d 337 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (Equates 'colorable claim' of law enforcement purpose with adequacy inquiry)