Plunkett v. Department of Justice
924 F. Supp. 2d 289
D.D.C.2013Background
- Plaintiff requested all non-exempt records touching him from EOUSA, focusing on the July 1999 Wimbush homicide; initial May 12, 2008 request and June 5, 2008 acknowledgment led to narrowed scope through back-and-forth.
- EOUSA released 178 unredacted pages and 48 redacted pages in May 2009, withholding 305 pages under FOIA exemptions 3, 6, 7(C), 7(D), 7(F) and Privacy Act j(2).
- Subsequent 2011 releases totaled 36 pages (35 with redactions). Boseker’s Vaughn index and declarations framed the exemptions and the extent of release; the court reviews search adequacy, exemptions, segregability, referrals, and related issues.
- Plaintiff challenged search adequacy and several exemptions, sought in camera review, and alleged bad faith; court applies de novo FOIA standard and weighs exemptions against privacy interests.
- Plaintiff later sought processing of additional records related to related but arguably outside the narrowed scope; court grants leave to process those records.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether EOUSA's search was adequate to locate all responsive records | Pl.'s last name asserts search was inadequate | EOUSA conducted a reasonable search; declarations show the scope and method | In part, search inadequate; factual dispute prevents summary judgment on search adequacy. |
| Whether exemptions 3, 5, 7(C), 7(D), 7(F) were properly applied | Exemptions misapplied or overbroad; public interest warrants disclosure | Exemptions properly applied to protect grand jury secrecy, work product, and privacy | Exemptions upheld; disclosures deemed proper with segregability analysis; some referrals denied. |
| Whether the Privacy Act exemption (j)(2) barred FOIA disclosure | Privacy Act was misapplied to bar disclosure | Privacy Act does not bar FOIA-disclosable records | Privacy Act exemption properly considered; FOIA disclosure upheld. |
| Whether records were properly referred or processed later in the action | Referrals to Marshals Service and BOP hindered plaintiff’s access | Referral procedures were permissible but some records to be processed remained unresolved | Referral-related processing denied for some records; remaining processing ordered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Perry v. Block, 684 F.2d 121 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (standard for search adequacy in FOIA cases)
- Weisberg v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 745 F.2d 1476 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (agency affidavits sufficient absent bad faith)
- SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (reasonableness of searches; deference to agency declarations)
- National Archives & Records Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157 (U.S. 2004) (public-interest balancing in privacy cases)
- United States Dep’t of Justice v. Landano, 508 U.S. 165 (U.S. 1993) (confidentiality of informants; implied confidences)
- Callaway v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, 577 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2008) (exemption 7(D) and implied confidentiality)
- Mays v. Drug Enforcement Admin., 234 F.3d 1324 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (implied confidentiality in informant/witness contexts)
- Wolf v. CIA, 473 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (public-domain doctrine and official acknowledgment)