191 F. Supp. 3d 83
D.D.C.2016Background
- Plaintiff Robert B. Tracy (pro se) contacted the FBI starting mid-2014 alleging threats, extortion, phone monitoring, and computer intrusions targeting him and his wife; he visited the FBI Las Vegas field office multiple times and made several phone calls.
- Tracy filed FOIA and Privacy Act requests in January 2015 seeking his “full FBI file”; the FBI initially searched its Central Records System (CRS) and reported no main-file records indexed to Tracy.
- After administrative appeal and related litigation (including Kimberly Tracy’s separate FOIA suit), the FBI located and released (as a courtesy) two documents (four pages) memorializing October 2 and October 8, 2014 field-office visits, with redactions under FOIA Exemptions 6, 7(C), and 7(E); it claimed no additional responsive records existed.
- Tracy sued to compel a more extensive search and to obtain unredacted records; the FBI filed for summary judgment asserting its search was reasonable and its redactions were proper under FOIA and the Privacy Act.
- The district court evaluated adequacy of the search (focusing on CRS/ACS/UNI and Sentinel searches, and the FBI’s use of main vs. cross-reference indices and particular search terms) and the applicability of Privacy Act exemption (28 C.F.R. § 16.96) and FOIA Exemptions 7(C) and 7(E).
- Holding: Court granted the FBI’s motion for summary judgment, denied Tracy’s cross-motion, and concluded the FBI conducted an adequate search, properly invoked Privacy Act protections, and permissibly withheld/redacted information under FOIA Exemptions 7(C) and 7(E); segregability obligations were satisfied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of FBI search for responsive records | FBI’s search was too narrow: it searched only "main" CRS files, failed to use requested search terms (DOB, SSN, visit dates), and missed records of June 2014 visit and multiple calls | FBI reasonably searched CRS via UNI and Sentinel using name variants, followed standard procedures, later located and released cross-referenced records, and additional suggested terms were unlikely to add responsive records | Court held FBI conducted a reasonable, adequate search; its methods (not fruits) control and production of cross-referenced records cured any initial narrowness |
| Privacy Act withholding (CRS exemption) | Tracy challenged availability but did not meaningfully contest that records were law-enforcement in nature | FBI relied on 28 C.F.R. § 16.96 and showed records were compiled for federal law-enforcement purposes (public corruption/extortion complaint) | Court held records qualify as law-enforcement records and are exempt under the Privacy Act’s (j)(2)/FBI regulation |
| FOIA Exemption 7(C) redactions (names/identifiers) | Tracy argued he needed identities to confirm alleged FBI involvement and argued FBI didn’t identify specific investigation | FBI asserted privacy interests of agents and third parties; disclosure not required absent compelling evidence of agency illegality | Court upheld redactions under 7(C); privacy interests outweigh Tracy’s generalized assertions and FBI met burden |
| FOIA Exemption 7(E) redaction (internal website addresses) | Tracy contended 7(E) should not block disclosure given his allegations of unlawful surveillance | FBI showed disclosure of internal URLs could enable cyberattacks and risk circumvention of law | Court found FBI met the relatively low 7(E) standard and properly withheld the internal site addresses |
Key Cases Cited
- NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214 (Sup. Ct.) (FOIA supports public accountability)
- Milner v. Department of Navy, 562 U.S. 562 (Sup. Ct.) (FOIA exemptions are narrowly construed)
- Valencia‑Lucena v. U.S. Coast Guard, 180 F.3d 321 (D.C. Cir.) (agency must demonstrate search reasonably calculated to uncover records)
- Iturralde v. Comptroller of Currency, 315 F.3d 311 (D.C. Cir.) (adequacy of search judged by methods used, not by whether any responsive documents are found)
- Mobley v. Central Intelligence Agency, 806 F.3d 568 (D.C. Cir.) (Privacy Act and FBI CRS exemption analysis)
- Doe v. FBI, 936 F.2d 1346 (D.C. Cir.) (standard for law‑enforcement records nexus under Privacy Act and FOIA)
- Schrecker v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 349 F.3d 657 (D.C. Cir.) (categorical rule protecting identities of private citizens in law‑enforcement records)
- Blackwell v. FBI, 646 F.3d 37 (D.C. Cir.) (Exemption 7(E) has a low bar; agencies need show disclosure could risk circumvention of law)