Smith v. Sessions
247 F. Supp. 3d 19
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Brian Avery Smith, a federal pretrial detainee who later pled guilty and was sentenced in a bank/mortgage fraud prosecution, submitted a FOIA request to the FBI for all files concerning him.
- FBI searched its Central Records System, identified a main investigative file, cross‑references, and a 197 civil‑litigation file; it released 15 pages (in full or redacted) and later released 153 pages in full, withholding other materials under FOIA Exemptions 5, 6, 7(A), 7(C), and 7(E).
- FBI explained that some withheld records relate to an ongoing criminal investigation and anticipated prosecutions (including co‑conspirators) and that the plaintiff had appealed his conviction.
- FBI moved to dismiss or for summary judgment; the court warned plaintiff of consequences for failing to oppose, extended deadlines twice, and plaintiff never filed an opposition.
- The court reviewed (on the merits) the adequacy of the FBI’s search, the propriety of asserted exemptions, and segregability, and considered whether to dismiss claims against other agencies for vagueness in the pleadings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of FBI search | Smith sought all FBI records about him (no substantive opposition filed) | FBI conducted name/alias/index searches, re‑ran searches after suit, located main file, cross‑refs, and 197 file; declarations describe methods | Search was reasonable and adequate; summary judgment for FBI on search issue |
| Withholding under Exemption 5 (attorney‑client/work product) | Smith did not dispute the withholdings | FBI withheld legal communications and work product from civil‑litigation file to protect litigation strategy and attorney communications | Court upheld Exemption 5 withholdings |
| Withholding under Exemptions 7(C) and 6 (privacy) | Smith did not identify a public interest to outweigh privacy | FBI withheld names/identifiers of agents, prosecutors, third parties, and victims; asserted strong privacy interests | Court upheld Exemption 7(C) withholdings; did not need to reach Exemption 6 separately |
| Withholding under Exemption 7(E) (techniques/procedures) | No effective dispute from Smith | FBI withheld internal Sentinel web address and similar material as disclosure could enable cyberattack or circumvention | Court upheld Exemption 7(E) withholdings |
| Withholding under Exemption 7(A) (interference with proceedings) | Smith sought records but did not press against the exemption | FBI showed ongoing/anticipated proceedings, investigative materials, and administrative details whose release could tip off suspects or impair investigations | Court upheld Exemption 7(A) withholdings for records withheld in full |
| Segregability | Smith did not challenge FBI’s segregability showing | FBI identified and released reasonably segregable non‑exempt material and explained redactions | Court found segregability adequate |
| Claims against other federal entities | Smith alleged vague FOIA requests to other agencies but pleaded no specifics and did not oppose motion | Other agencies pointed to vagueness and lack of response | Court dismissed remaining claims without prejudice for lack of clarity and failure to prosecute |
Key Cases Cited
- Steinberg v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 23 F.3d 548 (D.C. Cir.) (summary judgment standard in FOIA action)
- Weisberg v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 745 F.2d 1476 (D.C. Cir.) (adequacy of FOIA search standard)
- Ancient Coin Collectors Guild v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 641 F.3d 504 (D.C. Cir.) (search must be reasonably calculated)
- Safecard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir.) (presumption of good faith for agency declarations)
- NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132 (U.S.) (Exemption 5 and work‑product context)
- Mead Data Cent., Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Air Force, 566 F.2d 242 (D.C. Cir.) (attorney communications protected under Exemption 5)
- ACLU v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 655 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir.) (balancing public interest vs. privacy under Exemption 7(C))
- U.S. Dep’t of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (U.S.) (privacy interest belongs to individuals)
- Blackwell v. FBI, 646 F.3d 37 (D.C. Cir.) (Exemption 7(C) limits disclosure of private info in law‑enforcement files)
- Pub. Employees for Envtl. Responsibility v. U.S. Section, Int’l Boundary & Water Comm’n, U.S.-Mexico, 740 F.3d 195 (D.C. Cir.) (Exemption 7(E) low bar for risk of circumvention)
- Mayer Brown LLP v. IRS, 562 F.3d 1190 (D.C. Cir.) (Exemption 7(E) and risk standard)
- Trans‑Pacific Policing Agreement v. U.S. Customs Serv., 177 F.3d 1022 (D.C. Cir.) (segregability requirement)
- Powell v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 927 F.2d 1239 (D.C. Cir.) (must make explicit segregability findings)
- Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir.) (agency must identify withheld portions and justification)