Zander v. Department of Justice
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85168
D.D.C.2012Background
- Zander's June 2010 FOIA requests to DOJ/BOP sought records related to his incarceration; some records were released while others were withheld.
- Zander sued under FOIA alleging improper withholding, an inadequate search, and a potential cover-up by BOP personnel.
- Magistrate Judge Facciola recommended partial grant of each party's motion: release of redacted documents, in-camera review with redactions, and withholding of the video; denied exhaustion-related relief.
- The parties objected; the Court accepted the search adequacy, rejected a Vaughn index, and modified the in-camera document production while maintaining the video withholding.
- The Court ultimately granted summary judgment to some extent for both sides, ordering redacted documents to be released and keeping the video withheld.
- A separate order issued June 20, 2012.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the video must be disclosed under FOIA | Zander seeks release of the video with minimal redactions | Video disclosure would endanger officers and reveal procedures | Video properly withheld under FOIA exemption 7(F) |
| Whether the in-camera reviewed documents should be released | Documents should be released, redacted as needed | Documents may be withheld or redacted under privileges | Release with redactions; one additional confidentiality redaction added |
| Whether the e-mails are protected by attorney-client/work product privileges | E-mails should be disclosed with appropriate redactions | E-mails fall under privilege/work product protections | E-mails released as privileged material with redactions; one sentence redacted as confidential |
| Adequacy of the search for responsive records | Search was inadequate, suggesting a cover-up | Search was thorough and good-faith; extra documents do not prove inadequacy | Search deemed adequate; no reversal required |
| Whether a Vaughn index was required | A Vaughn index should be produced for withholdings | In-camera review suffices; Vaughn index not required here | Vaughn index not required; in-camera review and disclosures described sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Mead Data Cent., Inc. v. Dep't of the Air Force, 566 F.2d 242 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (FOIA Exemption 5 confidentiality standard acknowledged)
- In re Ampicillin Antitrust Litig., 81 F.R.D. 377 (D.D.C. 1978) (distinguishes Mead Data on confidentiality in FOIA context)
- State of Maine v. Dep't of Interior, 298 F.3d 60 (1st Cir. 2002) (confidentiality requirement for attorney-client communications)
- Tax Analysts v. IRS, 117 F.3d 607 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (attorney-client privilege scope under FOIA Exemption 5)
- Blanton v. DOJ, 182 F. Supp. 2d 81 (D.D.C. 2002) (securing protection for law-enforcement information; 7(F) context)
- Hayden v. N.S.A., 608 F.2d 1381 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (in camera review and disclosure standards)
- Roth v. DOJ, 642 F.3d 1161 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (Vaughn index and withholdings justification)
- Oglesby v. Dep't of Army, 117 F.3d 728 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (Vaughn-type description required for withheld documents)