Skip to main content

Accurso v. FBI, No. 19-2540, 2021 WL 411152 (D.D.C. Feb. 5, 2021) (Kollar-Kotelly, J.)

Date

Accurso v. FBI, No. 19-2540, 2021 WL 411152 (D.D.C. Feb. 5, 2021) (Kollar-Kotelly, J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning plaintiff's criminal prosecution

Disposition:  Granting defendant's motion for summary judgment

  • Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search:  "[T]he Court concludes that the agency conducted a search reasonably calculated to locate records responsive to plaintiff's FOIA request."  The court relates that "[t]he FBI's declarant set forth a detailed explanation of the agency's recordkeeping systems, the organization of information within these systems, and the scope and method of FBI's search for records responsive to plaintiff's FOIA request."
     
  • Exemption 7, Threshold:  The court holds that "FBI easily meets its burden to establish that all the records responsive to plaintiff's FOIA request were compiled for law enforcement purposes and fall within the scope of Exemption 7."  The court relates that "'FBI compiled the records at issue pursuant to its assistance to a law enforcement function,' . . . that is, providing assistance to a local law enforcement agency."
     
  • Exemption 7(C):  "[T]he Court concludes that FBI adequately justifies its reliance on Exemption 7(C)."  The court relates that "[t]he FBI relies on Exemption 7(C) to withhold the names of and identifying information about . . . Forensics Laboratory staff and task force officers, . . . local law enforcement personnel, . . . third party victims, . . . and third parties merely mentioned in the responsive records."  The court relates that "Plaintiff does not object to the FBI's decision to withhold names of and identifying information."  Instead, the court relates that plaintiff "presumes that the FBI is withholding filenames appearing in the responsive records."  However, the court notes that "[t]he plain language of the declaration indicates that FBI withholds only 'the names of third party victims.'"  "Plaintiff might overcome the victims' privacy interest if he could provide 'compelling evidence that the agency denying the FOIA request is engaged in illegal activity.'"  However, "[h]is . . . 'personal stake in using the requested records to attack his conviction [ ] does not count in the calculation of the public interest.'"
     
  • Exemption 7(E):  "[T]he Court concludes that the FBI properly relies on Exemption 7(E) to withhold non-public details about [Computer Analysis Response Team ("CART")] software, equipment, techniques, procedures and reports generated during its forensic examination of plaintiff's electronic devices."  The court relates that "the FBI withholds 'specific investigative tools, techniques, examiner notes, and forensic examination reports conducted on [plaintiff’s] electronic devices, in order to avoid unnecessarily exposing sensitive FBI technical capabilities.'"  Responding to "Plaintiff['s] [argument] that the FBI improperly applies Exemption 7(E) because certain of the information withheld is public already," the court finds that "forensic examination involves the retrieval of files and the use of software for this purpose may be public knowledge."  "What FBI withholds, however, is information not known to the public."
     
  • Litigation Considerations, "Reasonably Segregable" Requirements:  The court holds that "[t]he FBI meets its burden here by adequately describing the information withheld . . . and averring that all reasonably segregable material has been released."
     
Court Decision Topic(s)
District Court opinions
Exemption 7(C)
Exemption 7(E)
Exemption 7, Threshold
Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search
Litigation Considerations, “Reasonably Segregable” Requirements
Updated February 26, 2021