893 F.3d 796
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- Ryan Shapiro filed a FOIA request (Jan 14, 2013) seeking FBI records relating to Aaron H. Swartz, a deceased internet activist prosecuted by DOJ.
- The FBI searched its systems, released 21 responsive pages (Swartz-1 through Swartz-21) and redacted portions under Exemptions 6 and 7; two pages were duplicates and deleted.
- Shapiro administratively appealed (agency failed to timely respond) and then sued DOJ for FOIA violations, alleging an inadequate search and improper exemption assertions.
- During litigation the FBI located 68 additional pages (Swartz-24 through Swartz-91), withheld or redacted several pages under Exemptions 3, 6, and 7, and produced declarations from FBI Records Management employees explaining searches and redactions.
- The district court conducted in camera review and, across three opinions, upheld most redactions and the adequacy of the search but held some issues for additional justification; the court ultimately granted DOJ summary judgment and denied Shapiro’s cross-motion.
- On appeal the D.C. Circuit affirms the district court on exemption claims (including withholding Accurint-derived records under Exemption 7(E)), but vacates and remands as to records associated with Serial 91 that were later produced with redactions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of FBI search (Serial 91) | FBI failed to follow a reference to case ID Serial 91 and omitted responsive records | FBI located and later produced Serial 91 records (with redactions); search was adequate | Vacated/Remanded as to Serial 91 to allow further proceedings re: redactions (records later produced) |
| Withholding Accurint records & database identity under Exemption 7(E) | Accurint is commercial and publicly documented; FBI already disclosed some Accurint material, so 7(E) should not apply | Release would reveal FBI’s search methods, organization of results, and investigative techniques that could aid circumvention | Affirmed: FBI met its burden under 7(E); disclosure could risk circumvention of law |
| Withholding/redacting enclosure pages (Swartz-3A, 3B, 9A, 9B, 9C) | FBI said it would release two enclosures but produced only one; some pages withheld without adequate justification | FBI asserted Exemptions 6, 7(C), and 7(E) for those pages and explained the basis in declarations/exhibits | Affirmed: FBI provided adequate justification under Exemptions 6 and 7(C); no entitlement to release of withheld pages |
| Swartz-56 release claim | FBI withdrew 7(E) on this doc so it should be released | FBI still invokes Exemption 6 protecting personal privacy | Affirmed: Exemption 6 retained; appellant did not challenge its application, so no release |
Key Cases Cited
- Wolf v. CIA, 473 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (FOIA mandates broad disclosure subject to enumerated exemptions)
- Pratt v. Webster, 673 F.2d 408 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (scope of Exemption 7 and investigatory-records requirement)
- Mayer Brown LLP v. IRS, 562 F.3d 1190 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (agency must show logically how disclosure could risk circumvention under 7(E))
- Blackwell v. FBI, 646 F.3d 37 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (withholding database search methods under 7(E) can be justified even for commercial sources)
- ACLU v. DOJ, 655 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (standard of review for FOIA summary judgment and agency affidavits)
- Public Inv’rs Arbitration Bar Ass’n v. SEC, 771 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (agency burden to demonstrate exemption applicability)
- ACLU v. Dep’t of Def., 628 F.3d 612 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (affidavits can justify withholding when sufficiently detailed)
- Larson v. Dep’t of State, 565 F.3d 857 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (agency justification need only be logical or plausible)
- Sussman v. U.S. Marshals Serv., 494 F.3d 1106 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (Exemption 7(C) protects privacy interests in law enforcement records)