James MURPHY, Plaintiff, v. EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS, Defendant.
Civ. Action No. 13-0573 (ESH)
United States District Court, District of Columbia.
February 3, 2014
ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE, United States District Judge
ORDERED that by no later than January 6, 2014, defendant shall release to plaintiff the requested times each grand jury convened, if they are contained in an аgency record, and notify the Court forthwith upon the release of those records. If the information as to the times each grand jury convened does not appear in an agency record, defendant may exercisе its discretion to decide whether to convey the information to plaintiff.
Wenqiong Fu, U.S. Attorney‘s Office, Washington, DC, for Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE, United States District Judge
In December 2013, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendant‘s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff‘s Freedom оf Information Act (“FOIA“) claims and ordered the release of certain information “if ... contained in an agency rеcord.” See generally Dec. 6, 2013 Mem. Op. and Order [ECF No. 21] (“Mem. Op. I“). Both parties have moved for reconsideratiоn. See Def.‘s Mot. for Recons. or, in the Alternative, to Alter or Amend Judgment, and Mot. for Stay [ECF No. 24]; Pl.‘s Mot. to Alter or Amend the Judgment [ECF No. 25]. In light of defendant‘s motion, the Court ordered defendant to submit for in camera review the unredacted records сontaining information withheld under FOIA exemption 3 and stayed the release of any information pending further order. Seе Dec. 30, 2013 Min. Order. Upon consideration of the parties’ motions and the documents which have been submitted in camera, the Court will grant defendant‘s motion for reconsideration, deny plaintiff‘s motion for reconsideration, and enter judgment accordingly.
Since a judgment has not been entered on any claim, the Court will consider both motions to reсonsider under
Plaintiff‘s Motion to Reconsider
Plaintiff surmises that because the ruling did not address each of his “issue[s]” “separate and distinctly,” the Court had “overlooked” the Affidavit submitted as part of his opposition. See Pl.‘s Brief in Support of the Mot. to Alter, or Amend Judgment ¶¶ 1-3. When deciding a summary judgment motion, howevеr, the Court is required to resolve disputes over “material fact[s].”
Plaintiff also asserts that the Court overlooked (1) his claim that defendant‘s declaration was “conclusory and insufficient,” and (2) his challеnge to “the adequacy of the search, and its scope, because the agency alleges to have provided the captions of the indictments for both cases which appears [sic] to be stated in bad faith....” (Aff. of James E. Murphy [ECF No. 13] ¶¶ 16, 19.) The former assertion is belied by the fact that the Court agreed in part with plaintiff‘s criticism of defendant‘s declaration and, as a result, partially denied summary judgment to defendant. See Mem. Op. I at 6. As for the latter assеrtion, the Court determined that the premise of plaintiff‘s argument is not that defendant improperly withheld responsive documents, which triggers FOIA analysis, but that it released inaccurate court documents, which does not. See id. at 5. Since рlaintiff has presented no basis for amending the order, his
Defendant‘s Motion for Reconsideration
The Court has carefully reviewed the documents which contаin containing the requested times that the grand jury convened, along with a supporting declaration, in camera and it finds the documents to be exempt under FOIA exemption 3 because they are grand jury forms containing information that would reveal secret aspects of a grand jury investigation. See Mem. Op. I at 6 (discussing grand jury material); see also Second Decl. of Kathleen Brandon [ECF No. 24-3] ¶ 13 (describing generally “scenarios [where] the times in which a grand jury was convened in a particular case could disclose to a requester the identity of [grand jury] witnesses“). “Ultimately, an agency‘s justification for invoking a FOIA exemption is sufficient if [as here] it appears ‘logical’ or ‘plausible.‘” Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep‘t of Defense, 715 F.3d 937, 941 (D.C.Cir.2013) (quoting ACLU v. U.S. Dep‘t of Defense, 628 F.3d 612, 619 (D.C.Cir.2011) (other citations omitted). The Court further finds that any non-exempt information contained in the documents is so “inextricably intertwined” with the еxempt information that any attempt to segregate the documents would “produce an edited document with littlе informational value.” Mays v. DEA, 234 F.3d 1324, 1327 (D.C.Cir.2000) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that no improper withholding has occurred. It therefore will grant defendant‘s
ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE
United States District Judge