Parker v. United States Department of Justice, Office of Professional Responsability
278 F. Supp. 3d 446
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Lonnie J. Parker filed a FOIA suit seeking records about DOJ discipline of former AUSA Lesa Gail Bridges Jackson for prosecuting without a valid bar license.
- DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) located ~250 pages: some released, most withheld (in whole or in part), and 56 pages referred to EOUSA.
- The Court previously upheld many OPR withholdings under Exemption 7(C) but found OPR had not explained EOUSA’s withholdings for the 56 referred pages.
- DOJ later provided EOUSA Vaughn explanations; Parker abandoned his challenge to those 56 pages and conceded the agency adequately searched for a missing attachment after follow-up.
- The remaining dispute concerned an attachment to a produced letter from U.S. Attorney Paula Casey: a draft disciplinary letter (reviewed in camera) proposing a five-day suspension for misconduct unrelated to the bar lapse.
- The Court assessed whether the draft attachment is part of the responsive record and, if so, which portions are protected by FOIA exemptions (Exemptions 5, 6, 7(C)) and which are reasonably segregable and releasable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the draft attachment responsive as part of the produced Casey letter record? | The attachment should be produced because it is appended to a responsive Casey cover letter and forms part of the same record. | OPR contends the attachment is non-responsive (discusses unrelated misconduct) and thus need not be produced. | The attachment is properly treated as part of the Casey Letter record (an agency-identified unit); thus FOIA requires consideration of disclosure unless an exemption applies. |
| Does Exemption 5 (deliberative-process) protect the substantive reasons for the proposed suspension? | Parker argued for disclosure of substantive material or at least segregation. | OPR invoked Exemption 5 to withhold deliberative recommendations and reasoning. | Exemption 5 covers the attachment’s substantive, deliberative explanation of misconduct/recommendation; those middle paragraphs may be withheld, but neutral introductory and procedural portions are non-privileged and must be released. |
| Do privacy exemptions (Exemptions 6/7(C)) bar disclosure of the attachment’s facts about misconduct? | Parker argued portions are public or procedural and should be released; privacy exemptions don’t cover public/regulatory material. | OPR invoked Exemptions 6 and 7(C) to protect personal and law-enforcement privacy regarding internal discipline. | Exemption 7(C) applies to the factual descriptions of the alleged wrongdoing (lower bar than Exemption 6), so details may be redacted; public/procedural material and the opening paragraph duplicative of the cover letter must be disclosed. |
| Must the agency release segregable, nonexempt portions of the attachment? | Parker sought release of all nonexempt, reasonably segregable text. | OPR initially did not discuss segregability in detail but contended large portions are exempt. | Court ordered release of the first paragraph and the terminal section describing DOJ suspension procedures; the intervening justificatory paragraphs may be redacted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Am. Immigration Lawyers Ass’n v. Exec. Office for Immigration Review, 830 F.3d 667 (agency-defined "record" must be produced whole once identified as responsive)
- Dep’t of Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protective Ass’n, 532 U.S. 1 (deliberative-process protects advisory opinions and recommendations)
- NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132 (deliberative-process privilege scope)
- In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729 (D.C. Cir.) (deliberative privilege principles)
- Assassination Archives & Research Ctr. v. CIA, 334 F.3d 55 (agency must disclose reasonably segregable nonexempt portions)
- Coastal States Gas Corp. v. Dep’t of Energy, 617 F.2d 854 (privilege does not protect purely factual information)
- Wolf v. CIA, 473 F.3d 370 (public-domain duplication can defeat privacy-based withholding)
- Afshar v. Dep’t of State, 702 F.2d 1125 (public-domain doctrine and disclosure)
- EPA v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73 (severability of privileged and non-privileged parts)
- ACLU v. DOJ, 655 F.3d 1 (Exemption 7(C) protects privacy in law-enforcement records)