Pubien v. U.S. Department of Justice, 273 F. Supp. 3d 47

Pubien was convicted in a federal drug prosecution in the Southern District of Florida; AUSA Julia Vaglienti was the prosecutor involved.
Pubien sent a FOIA request to DOJ OPR seeking records of investigations related to Vaglienti and grand jury materials; OPR initially issued a Glomar response (refused to confirm or deny existence of records).
Pubien sued after OPR’s Glomar response; during litigation he clarified that he sought OPR investigative records specifically concerning complaints he had filed.
OPR then searched its Law Manager and Hummingbird DM databases for records in Pubien’s name, located 126 pages, released all but two pages, and redacted a few third‑party names and a personal e‑mail under FOIA Exemption 6.
Pubien alleged bad faith, an inadequate search, and challenged withholdings; the court reviewed OPR’s declarations and the record on cross‑motions for summary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was OPR’s initial Glomar response in bad faith?	Pubien: declarant mischaracterized his request and Glomar was improper/bad faith.	DOJ: Glomar was a reasonable administrative interpretation; later withdrawal and processing shows good faith.	Court: No bad faith; bare allegation insufficient; withdrawal and processing show good faith.
Was OPR’s subsequent search adequate?	Pubien: searchers should have searched by AUSA Vaglienti’s name; responsive records not investigations of Vaglienti.	DOJ: Pubien had narrowed request to records in his name; searching by Vaglienti would be overbroad and outside scope.	Court: Search adequate and reasonable under FOIA; no dispute of material fact.
Were the redactions justified under FOIA Exemption 6?	Pubien: did not meaningfully contest the redactions in opposition.	DOJ: redacted non‑attorney OPR employee names and a third party’s name/email to protect privacy.	Court: Exemption 6 applies; privacy interests outweigh any public interest asserted.
Did Pubien establish a public interest sufficient to overcome privacy interests?	Pubien: submitted a document examiner letter suggesting date‑stamp alteration (earlier briefing).	DOJ: no compelling evidence of agency illegality; not enough to show disclosure would advance public understanding.	Court: Public interest not established; privacy prevails.

Military Audit Project v. Casey, 656 F.2d 724 (D.C. Cir.) (standards for affidavits in FOIA summary judgment)
Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir.) (agency must justify withholdings; Vaughn index principles)
SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir.) (presumption of good faith for agency affidavits)
Oglesby v. U.S. Dep’t of Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir.) (standard for adequacy of agency FOIA search)
Wolf v. CIA, 473 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir.) (Glomar response doctrine)
Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v. Norton, 309 F.3d 26 (D.C. Cir.) (balancing test for Exemption 6 privacy interests)
Prison Legal News v. Samuels, 787 F.3d 1142 (D.C. Cir.) (names and identifiers fall within Exemption 6)
Judicial Watch, Inc. v. FDA, 449 F.3d 141 (D.C. Cir.) (privacy analysis for Exemptions 6 and 7(C))
Nat’l Archives & Records Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157 (U.S.) (burden on requester to show public interest when privacy implicated)
United States Dep’t of Def. v. FLRA, 510 U.S. 487 (U.S.) (FOIA’s core purpose for public interest analysis)
Davis v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 968 F.2d 1276 (D.C. Cir.) (public interest must be compelling to overcome privacy)
LaCedra v. Exec. Office for U.S. Attorneys, 317 F.3d 345 (D.C. Cir.) (construction of FOIA requests and scope)