117 F. Supp. 3d 1
D.D.C.2015Background
- In Jan 2015 Kimberly Tracy submitted a FOIA request to the FBI seeking all records pertaining to her (interviews, victim reports, and a telephone call). The FBI acknowledged and began a search.
- Tracy sued on March 19, 2015 after receiving no records within 20 days. The FBI later located eight pages and released them on May 14, 2015, with redactions and FOIA-exemption explanations.
- The FBI invoked FOIA exemptions (b)(6), (b)(7)(C), and (b)(7)(E) for withheld information (agent and third-party identities, sensitive unit identifiers, database printouts, internal web addresses).
- Tracy’s court filings focused on the FBI’s alleged failure to make a determination within the 20-day statutory period; she did not substantively challenge the adequacy of the FBI’s search or the justification for redactions.
- The court notified Tracy that failure to respond to the FBI’s legal arguments could be treated as concession; Tracy later sought to withdraw the case but did not properly file a motion or otherwise substantively oppose the FBI’s motion.
- The FBI submitted an unrefuted declaration describing its CRS index search (two name variations), the located records, and the rationale for each redaction; the court found the search and disclosures adequate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of FBI search for responsive records | Tracy argued only that FBI missed the 20-day determination; did not challenge search adequacy | FBI argued it conducted a reasonable CRS index search (two name variants) and located responsive records | Court held FBI’s unrefuted declaration shows an adequate search and all non-exempt material was disclosed |
| Withholding/redactions under FOIA exemptions | Tracy did not contest the exemptions substantively | FBI justified redactions under (b)(6), (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(E) for privacy, law‑enforcement sensitivity, and technique protection | Court accepted FBI’s justifications as logical and permissible; redactions upheld |
| Timeliness of agency response (20-day rule) | Tracy contended agency failed to determine compliance within 20 days as required by 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i) | FBI acknowledged delay but maintained that belated production moots substantive relief if all non-exempt records are produced | Court held delay alone does not entitle plaintiff to relief; once all non-exempt material is produced, no further FOIA relief is required |
| Dismissal without prejudice requested by plaintiff | Tracy sought withdrawal/dismissal without prejudice | FBI opposed dismissal because it had fulfilled FOIA obligations and plaintiff offered no substantive disputes | Court denied dismissal as inappropriate and entered judgment for FBI on merits (summary judgment for defendant) |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- ACLU v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., 628 F.3d 612 (agency affidavits can support summary judgment where detailed and uncontradicted)
- Petroleum Info. Corp. v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 976 F.2d 1429 (burden on agency to show withheld material falls within exemptions)
- Jacobs v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 725 F. Supp. 2d 85 (once agency releases all nonexempt material, court has no further FOIA function)
- Landmark Legal Found. v. EPA, 272 F. Supp. 2d 59 (untimeliness does not mandate relief for requester)
- Crooker v. U.S. State Dep’t, 628 F.2d 9 (disclosure of requested records can render case moot)