Bartko v. DOJ, No. 13-1135, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169112 (D.D.C. Dec. 18, 2015) (Boasberg, J.)
Date
Bartko v. DOJ, No. 13-1135, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169112 (D.D.C. Dec. 18, 2015) (Boasberg, J.)
Re: Request for records concerning plaintiff's criminal case
Disposition: Granting defendant's motion for summary judgment in part; ordering release of certain records
- Exemption 3: "Having reviewed the contents [of records withheld under Exemption 3 in camera], the Court is satisfied that the records were properly withheld as containing information about the names of recipients of federal grand-jury subpoenas; information that identifies specific records subpoenaed by a federal grand jury; and copies of specific records provided to a federal grand jury in response to such a subpoena." "In light of this, [the court finds that] the FBI appropriately declined to articulate the precise contents of the thumb drive so as to avoid 'reveal[ing] statutorily protected Federal Grand Jury information.'" However, regarding the withholding of one page, the court finds that "[w]hile other exemptions might appropriately justify the FBI's withholding – Exemption 7(C), for example – since it has only claimed Exemption 3 and that exemption does not seem appropriate here, the Court will order that this record be released."
- Exemptions 6 and 7(C): "With one exception . . . the Court finds that the privacy interests indisputably outweigh any potential public interest there may be in the records." The court finds that, "[t]o begin, it is undisputed that the records in question were created for law-enforcement purposes." "'Plaintiff's investigative main file was compiled by the FBI during its criminal investigation of plaintiff and others for the crimes of conspiracy to commit mail fraud, the sale of unregistered securities and money laundering, and engaging in unlawful monetary transactions . . . .'" Next, "[t]he Court finds substantial each of the privacy interests the FBI has asserted." The court relates that the FBI withheld "the names and/or identifying information of: (1) FBI special agents and support employees; (2) third parties of investigative interest; (3) non-FBI federal-government personnel; (4) third parties merely mentioned; (5) recipients of federal grand-jury subpoenas, trial subpoenas, administrative subpoenas, and individuals supplying responses; (6) third-party victims; (7) third parties who provided information to the FBI; and (8) state law-enforcement employees." Finally, the court finds that "although [plaintiff] does allege prosecutorial misconduct as the basis for both his own interest in accessing these FBI records, and also as the public interest in their release, he has not identified how the records sought will provide 'compelling evidence that the agency is engaged in illegal activity,' . . . nor does the Court find such evidence based on its review." The court also finds "that the FBI appropriately declined to specify which of the 7(C) exemption categories applied to [a] thumb drive in order to preserve the privacy of the individual(s) whose records were contained therein." However, "[t]he Court will . . . order that [the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of North Carolina sentencing schedule] be released" because it "does not understand either why this seemingly public information should be withheld for privacy reasons or how Exemption 7(C) relates to it."
- Waiver: "Absent specific identification of substantially identical records already released, the Court finds Plaintiff's public-domain argument does not alter the calculus that permits the FBI to withhold relevant records." The court relates that "[a]ll that [plaintiff] claims is that prior USPIS releases '[m]aterially [d]iminish[]' the privacy interests that motivate the FBI's claim of Exemption 7(C)." However, "[h]e provides no specific details in his Motion or affidavit of the precise information released by USPIS that 'appears to duplicate that being withheld.'"
- Exemption 7(E): The court holds that "the FBI has failed to meet its burden, and the Court sees no reason to withhold [the pages withheld under Exemption 7(E)] from Plaintiff." The court explains that it "is uncertain whether [defendant's] rationale was specified in error, as the exempted records do not appear to fit [defendant's] description." "Nor are these documents on their face in any other way appropriately withheld under Exemption 7(E)."
Court Decision Topic(s)
District Court opinions
Exemption 3
Exemption 6
Exemption 7(C)
Exemption 7(E)
Waiver and Discretionary Disclosure
Updated December 16, 2021