Stahl v. Department of Justice, 1:19-cv-04142

Plaintiff Aviva Stahl (investigative journalist) requested, under FOIA, full unedited videos of BOP’s involuntary medical treatment (IV rehydration and nasogastric tube feeding) of Mohammad Salameh at Florence ADX.
The BOP identified 13 videos (6 from Nov. 4 event; 7 from Nov. 11 event) that generally follow three sequential subject areas: (1) introductions/identifications and extraction procedure; (2) medical examination and forced treatment; (3) debrief/identifications.
The Court previously held that the first and third segments are exempt under FOIA Exemption 7(F) (revealing staff identities, security equipment, and extraction procedures could endanger safety) but reserved judgment on the second (medical) segments and ordered additional briefing on segregability.
The government’s supplemental submission overbroadly treated protective gear and positioning in the medical segments as inseparable exempt material and relied on a single blurring technique, estimating heavy editing burden.
The Court found the government misunderstood the prior ruling, that the medical-segment procedures do not pose the same safety risk as extraction procedures, and that the government’s redaction efforts/declarations were inadequate.
The Court ordered the government to attempt further, reasonable video redactions using available technical methods (beyond the single blur approach) and to refile analysis within 30 days; plaintiff may respond within 30 days thereafter.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the videos’ middle segments (medical exam and forced treatment) are exempt under FOIA Exemption 7(F)	Stahl: medical procedures occur after extraction; disclosure does not create the same security risk and are not exempt	BOP: protective gear, equipment, personnel placement pervade the segments and cannot be separated, posing safety risks	Court: medical procedures do not present the same danger as extraction details; government failed to show these segments are wholly exempt and must attempt redaction
Whether staff identities in the medical segments are reasonably segregable/redactable	Stahl: identities can be obscured by standard editing (black boxes, cropping, screenshots) and release should occur if redaction possible	BOP: redaction is unduly burdensome; prior editor estimated ~120 hours and relied on blurring only	Court: government’s effort was inadequate and premised on an overbroad reading; ordered additional, competent redaction attempts using broader editing techniques
Whether the government’s declarations and segregability showing satisfy FOIA’s burden	Stahl: declarations are conclusory and too vague to establish non-segregability	BOP: submitted declarations from a video editor and prison administrator describing risks and editing difficulty	Court: declarations insufficiently detailed and based on faulty premises; cannot rely on them to deny disclosure without further editing and analysis

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard)
Carney v. Dep’t of Just., 19 F.3d 807 (2d Cir. 1994) (government FOIA burden and use of affidavits)
Center for Constitutional Rights v. CIA, 765 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2014) (presumption of good faith for agency declarations)
Evans v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 951 F.3d 578 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (requiring reasonable isolations/screenshots from video surveillance)
Zander v. Department of Justice, 885 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2012) (Exemption 7(F) and risk of facilitating circumvention of procedures)
Spadaro v. Customs & Border Prot., 978 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 2020) (district court must make specific segregability findings)
Local 3, Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers v. NLRB, 845 F.2d 1177 (2d Cir. 1988) (in camera review is the exception, not the rule)
Manna v. Department of Justice, 51 F.3d 1158 (3d Cir. 1995) (reprisals/retaliation risk supports withholding identities)