Spataro v. Federal Bureau of Investigation
Civil Action No. 2014-0198
| D.D.C. | Sep 29, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Michael Spataro, a federal inmate convicted in 2006, filed a FOIA request to the FBI (July 2013) seeking all records “pertaining” to him, including files related to the criminal investigation that led to his conviction.
- FBI initially reported no responsive main files; OIP affirmed the FBI’s search but advised cross-reference searches required more identifying information from Spataro, who instead sued under FOIA.
- After suit, the FBI/DOJ located and produced multiple responsive documents (with redactions and some withholdings under FOIA Exemptions 3, 6, 7(C), and 7(D)); some documents remained missing or damaged due to Hurricane Sandy remediation.
- Spataro challenged (a) redactions (approx. 70 + 48 pages) under Exemptions 6, 7(C), and 7(D); (b) nonproduction of eleven (later described as thirteen) flood-damaged cross-reference files; (c) withholding under Exemption 3 of purported “pre-Title III checks”; and (d) absence of a formal Vaughn index.
- The FBI submitted detailed declarations describing search methods, coded redactions, and withheld categories; it later located three previously missing files and processed them, but thirteen flood-damaged files remain awaiting remediation.
- The court found most withholdings and searches adequate, denied relief on certain contested withholdings for lack of agency detail, and refused to grant summary judgment as to records still in remediating, flood-damaged files.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of search for responsive records | Spataro contends FBI failed reasonable search, especially for cross-reference files (four missing; later flood-damaged files) | FBI says it searched CRS/ACS via UNI, located and processed many files; some files are inaccessible pending remediation | Search adequate except for potentially responsive material in thirteen flood-damaged files; further proceedings/status reports required |
| Withholding under Exemption 3 (Title III) | Spataro alleges FBI withheld "pre-Title III checks" not covered by Title III nondisclosure | DOJ says withheld material consists of wiretap applications, orders, intercepted communications, and identities of wiretap targets covered by Title III | Court accepts Exemption 3 for actual Title III materials and target identities; denies summary judgment as to any withheld material that consists of pre-application notes absent further clarification/evidence |
| Withholding under Exemption 7(C) / 6 (privacy) | Spataro argues redactions shield government misconduct and conceal cooperator information disclosed at trial | FBI invokes SafeCard rule to protect names/identifying info of agents, third parties, informants; asserts no prior disclosures that diminish privacy interests | Court upholds Exemption 7(C) redactions under SafeCard; plaintiff failed to produce evidence of government illegality or specific prior disclosures to overcome withholding |
| Withholding under Exemption 7(D) (confidential sources) and sufficiency of agency declarations | Spataro challenges 7(D) redactions and requests a Vaughn index to test claims | FBI provided Hardy declarations describing categories of confidential sources and coded annotations in production; contends declarations perform Vaughn function | Court permits use of Hardy declarations and coded annotations in lieu of formal Vaughn index but finds FBI's 7(D) showing (express promises of confidentiality) too boilerplate for some withholdings and requires more probative evidence to sustain those 7(D) claims |
Key Cases Cited
- NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214 (FOIA purpose and informed citizenry)
- Milner v. Dep't of Navy, 562 U.S. 562 (FOIA exemptions construed narrowly)
- Labow v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 831 F.3d 523 (Exemption 3 standards)
- SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (SafeCard rule—7(C) categorical withholding and balancing)
- Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 854 F.3d 675 (diminished privacy interest and particularized weighing)
- Roth v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 642 F.3d 1161 (relation of Exemption 6 and 7(C))
- United States v. Landano, 508 U.S. 165 (inference of confidentiality in informant context)
- Campbell v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 164 F.3d 20 (probative evidence required to show express assurances of confidentiality under 7(D))
- Oglesby v. U.S. Dep't of Army, 920 F.2d 57 (agency must show good-faith, reasonably calculated search)
- Valencia-Lucena v. U.S. Coast Guard, 180 F.3d 321 (standard for summary judgment on adequacy of search)