Rahim v. Federal Bureau of Investigation
947 F. Supp. 2d 631
E.D. La.2013Background
- Katrina relief efforts led to Common Ground Relief (CGR) in New Orleans.
- Darby began working with CGR circa 2005 and remained until 2008.
- Darby later revealed in a December 2008 letter that he served as an FBI informant; he testified as a government witness in the McKay case in January 2009.
- Plaintiff (Rahim) submitted a FOIA request to the FBI on February 24, 2009 seeking records about Rahim, CGR, and Darby.
- FBI issued multiple communications about search status and processing; a Glomar approach was used regarding Darby without confirmation of existence of records.
- Plaintiff filed this FOIA suit on November 16, 2011; Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing exhaustion and proper use of Glomar/exemptions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rahim exhausted administrative remedies for CahP records | Rahim exhausted via July 30, 2009 appeal on Darby. | Appeal limited to Darby; no exhaustion for Rahim/CGR records. | Rahim failed to exhaust for Rahim/CGR records; claims dismissed. |
| Whether Defendants properly issued a Glomar response for Darby records | Darby’s status confirmed; no privacy interest justifying Glomar. | Darby has privacy interests; disclosure would invade privacy; public interest insufficient. | Glomar response proper; exemptions 6 and 7(C) justified. |
| Whether the 552(c)(2) exclusion applies to Darby’s status | Darby’s informant status officially confirmed, exclusion available. | No official confirmation; exclusion not triggered; or if invoked, justified. | If invoked, exclusion amply justified; status not officially confirmed for Rahim’s case. |
| Whether the FBI is a proper defendant; need not determine at this stage | FBI not an agency under FOIA; DOJ only proper defendant. | FBI is properly before the court; DOJ also a party; no need to decide separately. | Court declines to resolve; DOJ and FBI both before court; no impact on outcome. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gardels v. CIA, 689 F.2d 1100 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (Glomar concept for confirming or denying records.)
- John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp., 493 U.S. 146 (U.S. 1989) (FOIA disclosures and exemptions guidance.)
- CIA v. Sims, 471 U.S. 159 (U.S. 1985) (Balancing public disclosure with national security interests.)
- New York Times Co. v. NASA, 985 F.2d 119 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (D.C. Cir. 1990) (Interpretation of exemptions including 7(C) for privacy.)
- Favish, 541 U.S. 157 (U.S. 2004) (Favish public-interest standard in FOIA balancing.)
- Boyd v. Criminal Div. of U.S. DOJ, 475 F.3d 381 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (Public-interest burden in exemption 7(C) balancing.)
- Lesar v. Dep’t of Justice, 636 F.2d 472 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (Privacy interests in 7(C) context; third-party records.)
- Pickard v. Dep’t of Justice, 653 F.3d 782 (9th Cir. 2011) (Informant status and official confirmation in exclusion analysis.)