Shapiro v. Department of Justice
249 F. Supp. 3d 502
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Ryan Shapiro sought FBI records relating to Aaron Swartz under FOIA after Swartz’s death and a federal investigation into his online activities.
- The FBI produced numerous pages, withholding or redacting others under FOIA Exemptions 3, 6, 7(C), 7(E), and 7(F); the parties litigated multiple rounds of summary judgment and supplemental declarations.
- Shapiro no longer contests the Exemption 3 withholdings; his remaining challenge targets the FBI’s use of Exemption 7(E) to redact a database name on one document (Swartz-91) and to withhold seven Accurint-generated report pages in full (Swartz-83–89).
- The FBI submitted a supplemental declaration (Fourth Hardy Decl.) explaining that the withheld pages are investigative reports from Accurint that reveal methods the FBI uses to locate and identify subjects and that disclosure could facilitate circumvention.
- The Court found the redaction of the database name moot because the name (Accurint) had already been disclosed previously, but considered whether the withheld reports themselves could be withheld under Exemption 7(E).
- The Court concluded the FBI met the relatively low Exemption 7(E) standard by showing logically how disclosure of the reports could risk circumvention of the law and granted summary judgment for the DOJ.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the FBI may withhold law-enforcement reports under FOIA Exemption 7(E) | Shapiro: Reports should be disclosed because the database (Accurint) is publicly known and a vendor user guide discloses search/report capabilities, so withholding is unjustified | DOJ: Even if the database identity is known, the specific reports reveal the manner, content, and use of investigative data; disclosure could enable criminals to adopt countermeasures and evade detection | Court: Held for DOJ; Exemption 7(E) justified for the withheld reports because the declaration shows logically how disclosure might risk circumvention |
| Whether redaction of the database name (Swartz-91) was proper | Shapiro: Redaction improper because the database name is public and had been previously disclosed | DOJ: Name withheld to protect investigative sources/techniques | Court: Moot — name was already produced earlier (Accurint), so no further relief required |
| Sufficiency of agency declarations to support Exemption 7(E) withholding | Shapiro: Hardy declaration is not credible and harm claims are manufactured given prior disclosure of database name | DOJ: Declarations are detailed, non-conclusory, and entitled to presumption of good faith | Court: Declarations adequate and presumed good faith; prior production error does not show bad faith |
| Standard for applying Exemption 7(E) (categorical vs. risk showing) | Shapiro: N/A as he challenges sufficiency | DOJ: Initially argued technique disclosure is a categorical bar to disclosure | Court: Applies D.C. Circuit precedent — agency must show logically how disclosure might risk circumvention but need not a highly specific prediction; DOJ met this lower standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Blackwell v. FBI, 646 F.3d 37 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (Exemption 7(E) requires a logical showing of risk of circumvention but sets a relatively low bar)
- Mayer Brown LLP v. IRS, 562 F.3d 1190 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (requirements for Exemption 7(E) risk-of-circumvention showing)
- Pub. Emp. for Envtl. Responsibility v. Int’l Boundary & Water Comm’n, 740 F.3d 195 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (application of Exemption 7(E) to techniques and guidelines)
- SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (agency affidavits may satisfy FOIA burden if relatively detailed and non-conclusory)
- Military Audit Project v. Casey, 656 F.2d 724 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (affidavits must describe withheld documents and justifications with reasonable specificity)
- Students Against Genocide v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 257 F.3d 828 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (agency entitled to summary judgment if it shows each document was disclosed or is wholly exempt)