Allen v. DOJ, No. 17-1197, 2020 WL 473526 (D.D.C. Jan. 29, 2020) (Kollar-Kotelly, J.)

Allen v. DOJ, No. 17-1197, 2020 WL 473526 (D.D.C. Jan. 29, 2020) (Kollar-Kotelly, J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning placement in a Security Threat Group

Disposition:  Granting defendant's motions for summary judgment; denying plaintiff's motion for reconsideration; denying plaintiff's motion for in camera review

• Litigation considerations, Adequacy of Search:  "Based on the supporting declarations, the Court concludes that BOP's supplemental search was reasonable."  The court finds that "BOP's searches were not perfect, but perfection is not the standard."  Responding to plaintiff's objections, the court finds that "BOP does not run afoul of FOIA because its searches did not result in the discovery or release of particular information of interest to plaintiff."  "Nor does BOP violate FOIA by refusing to identify and verify each [Security Threat Group ("STG") and Security Threat Profile ("STP")] BOP may have assigned plaintiff."  "FOIA does not require an agency to answer a requester's questions."
   
• Procedural Requirements:  The court finds that, "[i]n this Circuit, as long as an inmate is afforded a meaningful opportunity to review and take notes about his PSR, he has no recourse under FOIA for release of his PSR."  "BOP is not obligated to release plaintiff's [presentence investigation report] in response to his FOIA request."
   
• Exemption 7, Threshold:  The court relates that "[defendant's] declarant explains that STG 'assignments are a tool used to monitor and track inmates who pose unique security threats, such as associations with gangs or terrorist organizations and sex offender status.'"  "It follows that [a program statement and a BOP Counter Terrorism Unit memorandum at issue] announcing plaintiff's third STG/STP assignment would have been compiled for law enforcement purposes."
   
• Exemption 7(C):  "The Court concludes that BOP properly redacted from the SIS Report third-party information under Exemptions 6 and 7(C) (names and register numbers of inmates involved in investigation and identifying information about other third parties) . . . ."
   
• Exemption 7(F):  First, "[t]he Court concludes that BOP properly redacted from the SIS Report third-party information under . . . [Exemption] 7(F) (identifying information about inmates and others who cooperated with investigation of identity theft and tax fraud scheme)."  Second, "on review of defendant's supporting declarations, the Court concludes that BOP properly redacted portions of the SIS Manual under Exemption[] . . . 7(F)."  The court relates that defendant states that "BOP invoked Exemption 7(F), asserting that release of certain information in the SIS Manual could, for example, teach 'inmates . . . how to evade detection in using the phone or mail to commit criminal acts such as drug introduction, murder for hire, [or] fraud . . ., which would make them feel more free to commit such criminal acts, some of which could endanger the lives of others."  "In such circumstances, the declarant asserts, there would be 'fewer successful SIS investigations[ ] and fewer restraints on inmates who may seek to commit acts of violence[.]'"
   
• Waiver:  "Based on the Court's review of BOP's supporting declaration, . . . and absent any meaningful challenge by plaintiff, the Court concludes that BOP properly withheld in full the disciplinary records of another inmate under Exemptions 6, 7(C), 7(E) and 7(F)."  The court relates that "Plaintiff objects to these withholdings on the ground that the inmate's identity already has been disclosed."  "He opines that [one individual], whose name has been disclosed in the CTU Memo and the SIS report, is the subject inmate."  "But this speculation on plaintiff's part – disclosure of [the individual's] identity on other records does not establish conclusively that the disciplinary records at issue pertain to [the individual]."  "Furthermore, plaintiff's purported knowledge of the inmate's identity would not justify disclosure of information regarding this inmate or any other third party mentioned in these records."
   
• Exemption 7(E):  First, "on review of defendant's supporting declarations, the Court concludes that BOP properly redacted portions of the SIS Manual under Exemption[] 7(E) . . . ."  The court relates that defendant stated that "disclosure of this information 'would allow inmates to circumvent investigations . . . by revealing how BOP collects information, . . . strategies in conducting these investigations, and how BOP prioritizes various issues associated with an internal investigation' . . . ."  Second, regarding the withholding of plaintiff's STG/STP Assignments, the court finds that "[defendant's] declarations are sufficiently detailed and adequately demonstrate that disclosure of plaintiff's third STG/STP assignment would reveal 'the techniques and procedures . . . use[d] to monitor inmates,' . . . which '[p]laintiff or other inmates could reasonably be expected to use to circumvent the law,' . . . ."  "BOP thus justifies its reliance on Exemption 7(E) to withhold plaintiff's STG/STP assignment from the CTU Memo."
   
• Litigation Considerations, "Reasonably Segregable" Requirements:  The court holds that "[defendant's] declarations adequately describe the information withheld and aver that all reasonably segregable material has been released."
   
• Litigation Considerations:  "Because the Court considered the arguments set forth in plaintiff's Surreply even if it did not mention or discuss them at length, plaintiff's motion to reconsider on this basis is denied."