Parker v. United States Department of Justice, Office of Professional Responsability
214 F. Supp. 3d 79
| D.D.C. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Lonnie J. Parker submitted a FOIA request to DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) for records related to an investigation of former AUSA Lesa Gail Bridges Jackson’s unauthorized practice of law.
- OPR initially issued a Glomar response refusing to confirm or deny the existence of records; Parker administratively appealed and sued when OPR did not produce records.
- After litigation began, OPR learned that EOUSA had already acknowledged an OPR investigation in documents previously released to Parker; OPR withdrew its Glomar response and agreed to release all non‑exempt records and provide a Vaughn index.
- OPR identified 251 responsive pages: 18 released in full; 20 pages partially withheld; 149 pages withheld in full; and 64 pages referred to other DOJ components (56 to EOUSA, 6 to JMD, 2 to OIP).
- The parties cross‑moved for summary judgment. The Court conducted in camera review of four partially withheld documents and narrowed remaining disputes to three issues: procedural sufficiency of OPR’s summary judgment filing, application of Exemptions 6 and 7(C) to four documents, and adequacy of OPR’s treatment of documents referred to EOUSA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant’s filing a Motion for Summary Judgment instead of an Answer admits plaintiff’s allegations | Parker: Failure to file an answer is deemed admission, entitling him to judgment | OPR: Rule 56 allows motion at any time; filing a MSJ is an appropriate response | Court: OPR’s MSJ was permissible; Parker’s argument rejected |
| Whether Exemptions 6 and 7(C) justify withholding portions of four documents (OPR‑3, ‑4, ‑9, ‑75) | Parker: Public disclosures have already revealed misconduct and investigation, reducing privacy interests and favoring disclosure | OPR: Records compiled for law‑enforcement purposes; privacy interests in withheld details and third‑party names outweigh public interest | Court: Records are law‑enforcement; substantial privacy interests exist; public interest in agency performance not advanced by specifics; Exemption 7(C) withholding upheld |
| Segregability of withheld portions in the four documents | Parker: Requests court to ensure OPR provided all non‑exempt portions | OPR: Redactions are appropriately non‑segregable or would yield little value | Court: In camera review finds no additional reasonably segregable, non‑exempt material; segregation adequacy upheld |
| Whether OPR satisfied FOIA duties regarding records it referred to EOUSA | Parker: OPR improperly abdicated responsibility and failed to provide legal bases for EOUSA’s withholdings | OPR: Referrals permissible under DOJ regs; EOUSA has produced records and made withholding claims | Court: OPR failed to carry its burden to justify EOUSA‑withheld records because it did not provide specific justifications to plaintiff; OPR’s MSJ denied as to EOUSA‑referred documents and must supplement explanations |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (genuine‑dispute standard on summary judgment)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (moving party’s burden on summary judgment)
- Larson v. Department of State, 565 F.3d 857 (agency affidavits in FOIA cases)
- Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (FOIA burden and purpose)
- Kimberlin v. Department of Justice, 139 F.3d 944 (OPR investigatory files are law‑enforcement records; privacy interests)
- ACLU v. Department of Justice, 655 F.3d 1 (Exemption 7(C) lower bar than Exemption 6)
- Nation Magazine v. U.S. Customs Service, 71 F.3d 885 (privacy interest in nondisclosure of investigative subject identity)