313 F. Supp. 3d 88
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- Plaintiff Jeremy (Jeremy Pinson, referred to with feminine pronouns by the Court) is a pro se, incarcerated FOIA requester who submitted numerous FOIA requests to the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) seeking institutional, investigative, email, medical, and disciplinary records.
- DOJ (on behalf of BOP) filed its fourth motion for summary judgment addressing ten remaining BOP requests, asserting BOP conducted adequate searches, released non-exempt material, and properly withheld/redacted material under FOIA exemptions. Pinson did not oppose the motion.
- The Court previously granted and denied parts of earlier DOJ summary judgment motions; several requests were reprocessed by BOP after the Court’s prior opinions.
- Key contested issues concern (a) adequacy of BOP’s searches (including email archive issues and destroyed records), and (b) the applicability of FOIA Exemptions 6 and 7 (subparts C, E, F) to withheld/redacted records (e.g., inmate/staff identifiers, investigative techniques, use-of-force details, statute-based programming assignments).
- The Court independently reviewed agency declarations (7th Christenson Decl.) and a Vaughn index; it granted summary judgment to DOJ in part and denied in part, identifying specific documents for which withholding was insufficiently justified and ordering possible renewed briefing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of BOP searches for ten requests (incl. emails) | Searches were inadequate or failed to locate responsive records (implied by prior denials) | BOP conducted reasonably calculated, good-faith searches; provided detailed declarations of systems searched and terms used | Court: searches for Requests 2011-7156, 2012-39, 2012-40, 2013-1684 were adequate; summary judgment on adequacy granted |
| Withholding names, contact info, case/claim numbers (Exemption 6) | Plaintiff seeks disclosure; prior opinion required more privacy analysis | BOP: disclosure would invade privacy (medical stigma, harassment risk); provided privacy analyses on reprocessing | Court: most Exemption 6 withholdings appropriate (telephone extensions, plaintiff/claimant identities in sensitive contexts); one third-party pre-ACA auditor name withholding was not adequately justified and was denied |
| Withholdings under Exemption 7(C) (law-enforcement records' privacy) | Plaintiff argues public interest outweighs privacy for many records | BOP: names/register numbers/medical info/staff IDs and contact info would invade privacy and harm safety; many records compiled for law enforcement purposes | Court: Exemption 7(C) properly applied to withhold inmate/staff identifiers, medical details, and some staff contact info; summary judgment granted for those withholdings |
| Withholdings under Exemption 7(E) (techniques/procedures) | Plaintiff challenges nondisclosure of some after-action and programming documents | BOP: disclosure of use-of-force procedures, investigative techniques, weapons lists, CIM/classification details would risk circumvention | Court: 7(E) justified for use-of-force recommendations, investigative techniques, weapons lists, and similar items; BUT BOP failed to justify withholding documents related to Pinson's statute-based programming assignment under 7(E) — denial as to those documents |
| Withholdings under Exemption 7(F) (endangerment of safety) | Plaintiff contends many fields could be anonymized rather than withheld | BOP: disclosure would reasonably be expected to endanger inmates or staff (informant status, separation lists, screening answers, lock/keys, crisis procedures) | Court: deference to BOP’s safety assessments; 7(F) applies to most withheld items (witness-form answers, gang/informant info, separation lists, lock photos, crisis steps). Denied for statute-based programming assignment documents where 7(C) redactions already protect identities and BOP failed to show remaining danger |
| Segregability | Plaintiff argues agency must release non-exempt portions | DOJ says segregable portions released and provided Vaughn index | Court: agency met segregability burden with detailed Vaughn index and declaration; presumption of compliance accepted |
Key Cases Cited
- Morley v. CIA, 508 F.3d 1108 (D.C. Cir.) (agency must show search was reasonably calculated to uncover relevant documents)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (Supreme Court) (movant bears initial burden on summary judgment)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (Supreme Court) (standard for materiality and genuine dispute at summary judgment)
- Iturralde v. Comptroller of the Currency, 315 F.3d 311 (D.C. Cir.) (reasonable-detailed affidavit required to support adequacy of FOIA search)
- Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press v. DOJ, 489 U.S. 749 (Supreme Court) (public interest in FOIA limited to understanding government operations)
- SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir.) (agency affidavits accorded presumption of good faith)
- Blackwell v. FBI, 646 F.3d 37 (D.C. Cir.) (low bar for agency to justify withholding under Exemption 7(E))
- Mayer Brown LLP v. IRS, 562 F.3d 1190 (D.C. Cir.) (scope of risk-of-circumvention standard under Exemption 7(E))
- Prison Legal News v. Samuels, 787 F.3d 1142 (D.C. Cir.) (Exemption 6 protects "bits" of personal information such as names and addresses)