379 F. Supp. 3d 1067
S.D. Cal.2019Background
- Roderic Mack Wright submitted FOIA requests in 2014–2015 to DOJ (Tax Division and FBI/EOUSA) and the Department of the Treasury seeking documents related to a federal criminal investigation of his business dealings.
- Tax Division searched its systems, released limited redacted records, referred 70 IRS-originating pages to IRS (which withheld them as grand jury and under other exemptions), and withheld additional pages under Exemptions 3, 5, 6, and 7.
- FBI/EOUSA located thousands of potentially responsive pages but, after a narrowing agreement with Wright, produced a handful of pages and withheld the remainder (including search warrant affidavits and grand-jury-related material) as exempt.
- Treasury treated Wright’s initial request as insufficiently specific, asked for clarification, and administratively closed the file after Wright failed to provide the requested clarification.
- Wright’s oppositions focused on background material, challenged mainly Exemption 6 redactions and grand jury designations, sought a Vaughn index and additional discovery; the Court found most of his arguments inadequately developed or waived.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of Tax Division search | Wright contends records were withheld; disputes some redactions | Tax Division performed reasonable searches across systems and produced/referrred responsive records | Search was reasonable; Wright waived challenge by failing to meaningfully oppose |
| Application of Exemption 6 to identifying information | Wright says he already knows names so disclosure harmless; asks for at least redacted production | Tax Division/IRS withheld names, contact and identifiers to protect privacy of third parties tied to criminal probes | Exemption 6 withholding appropriate; privacy outweighs public interest; redaction/disclosure unnecessary given other exemptions |
| DOJ/FBI/EOUSA withholding (grand jury, investigative materials) | Wright argues some warrant affidavits predate grand jury and should be disclosed; objects to scope of withholding; demanded Vaughn index and discovery | DOJ contends protections (Rule 6(e), Exemption 3, Exemptions 5/7) cover grand jury/investigative materials and provided Vaughn indices; searches were reasonable | Withholdings valid as to grand jury and investigatory material; Vaughn indices adequate; request for discovery denied; summary judgment for DOJ granted |
| Treasury's refusal to process request | Wright claims he provided clarification and Treasury should have searched | Treasury says request was too vague, repeatedly sought clarification, received no adequate response, and closed request administratively | Treasury did not have duty to search; request was not reasonably described; summary judgment for Treasury granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Nat'l Res. Def. Council v. Dep't of Def., 388 F. Supp. 2d 1086 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (summary judgment is the usual procedural vehicle in FOIA cases)
- Lion Raisins v. Dep't of Agric., 354 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2004) (FOIA disclosure presumption and narrow construction of exemptions)
- John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp., 493 U.S. 146 (U.S. 1989) (FOIA's disclosure philosophy and exemption interpretation)
- Weisberg v. Dep't of Justice, 705 F.2d 1344 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (agency must show it conducted a search reasonably calculated to uncover relevant documents)
- Lahr v. Nat'l Transp. Safety Bd., 569 F.3d 964 (9th Cir. 2009) (privacy interests under Exemption 6 protect individuals linked to government investigations)
- Landmark Legal Found. v. I.R.S., 267 F.3d 1132 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (Vaughn index need only provide individualized descriptions sufficient to support exemptions)
- Iglesias v. Cent. Intelligence Agency, 525 F. Supp. 547 (D.D.C. 1981) (broad protection of grand jury material)
- Greenberg v. U.S. Dep't of Treasury, 10 F. Supp. 2d 3 (D.D.C. 1998) (pre-grand-jury materials may be protected if they reveal direction/strategy of an investigation)
- Yagman v. Pompeo, 868 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 2017) (FOIA obligations are triggered only by requests that reasonably describe the records sought)
- Marks v. United States, 578 F.2d 261 (9th Cir. 1978) (overly broad FOIA requests that force agencies to guess are impermissible)