Stein v. U.S. Department of Justice
197 F. Supp. 3d 115
| D.D.C. | 2016Background
- Jeffrey Stein submitted multiple FOIA requests to DOJ components; Counts V and VI concern FBI records (Count V: Christopher Hitchens; Count VI: Gwyneth Todd).
- For Count V, FBI released some pages with redactions; the court previously found the FBI had justified one express confidentiality assertion under Exemption (b)(7)(D) but not 28 pages withheld based on an implied assurance and remanded for further explanation.
- FBI produced a supplemental declaration relying on the Foreign Government Information Classification Guide (G-1 Guide) showing the foreign agency had requested its relationship with the FBI be treated as classified/confidential; Stein conceded this evidence established an implied assurance.
- For Count VI, Stein (and Todd) requested FBI records; FBI estimated large page counts and sought advance fees; Stein sought a public-interest fee waiver and later indicated willingness to pay but did not timely remit advanced fees; FBI administratively closed further processing until fees were paid.
- The court previously denied Stein’s fee-waiver claim; afterward the FBI revised its page estimate upward and requested a larger advance payment; Stein later paid $72.50 (original partial payment) after litigation.
- Present motions: DOJ renewed summary judgment on Counts V and VI; Stein cross-moved on Count VI. Court considered whether FBI justified (b)(7)(D) withholdings for Count V and whether statutory fee rules barred charging duplication fees for Count VI due to untimely agency processing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FBI properly withheld 28 pages re: Hitchens under FOIA Exemption (b)(7)(D) based on implied assurance of confidentiality | Stein conceded the G-1 Guide evidence establishes an implied assurance | FBI relied on G-1 Guide showing foreign agency requested classification/confidentiality | Granted for DOJ — FBI sufficiently justified implied assurance and (b)(7)(D) withholding |
| Whether FBI may charge duplication/processing fees for Todd request after delay in processing | Stein: FOIA §552(a)(4)(A)(viii) prohibits charging duplication fees to news-media requesters if agency failed to meet time limits and no "unusual or exceptional circumstances" apply; FBI's delay triggers the prohibition | DOJ: argued generally that fees need not be waived because plaintiff never paid; did not meaningfully rebut §552(a)(4)(A)(viii) argument and cited inapposite authority | Granted for Stein — Court deemed DOJ to have conceded the statutory fee argument; ordered FBI to process Count VI free of charge and return $72.50 with interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Stein v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 134 F. Supp. 3d 457 (D.D.C. 2015) (prior opinion addressing adequacy of searches and fee-waiver issue)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard and inferences at summary judgment)
- ACLU v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., 628 F.3d 612 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (agency affidavits can support summary judgment when detailed and plausible)
- Hayden v. Nat’l Sec. Agency/Cent. Sec. Serv., 608 F.2d 1381 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (agency affidavits must be specific and not conclusory)
- Mead Data Cent., Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Air Force, 566 F.2d 242 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (non-exempt portions must be disclosed unless inextricably intertwined)
- Pollack v. Dep’t of Justice, 49 F.3d 115 (4th Cir. 1995) (discussed regarding earlier absence of statutory prohibition on charging fees for untimely processing)
- Bartko v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 102 F. Supp. 3d 342 (D.D.C. 2015) (district court FOIA decision cited by DOJ but held inapposite here)