Skip to main content

Battle Born Invs. Co., LLC. v. DOJ, No. 24-00067, 2024 WL 5246515 (D.D.C. Dec. 30, 2024) (Howell, J.)

Date

Battle Born Invs. Co., LLC. v. DOJ, No. 24-00067, 2024 WL 5246515 (D.D.C. Dec. 30, 2024) (Howell, J.)

Re:  Request for “document that would reveal the name of the individual – referred to by the parties as ‘Individual X’ – who signed a Consent and Agreement to Forfeiture (‘Consent Agreement’) with the United States Government authorizing ‘the largest cryptocurrency seizure in history’”

Disposition:  Granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment; denying plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment

  • Exemption 7, Threshold; Exemption 7(C):  The court holds that “the government properly invoked Exemption 7(C) to withhold Individual X’s name from disclosure.”  “As an initial matter, [plaintiff] does not dispute that the Consent Agreement at issue was created, compiled, and used for law enforcement purposes.”  “DOJ’s affiant easily demonstrates that this threshold requirement has been satisfied, attesting that the ‘information requested was created as part of a civil forfeiture action’ initiated and pursued by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California ‘because of some criminal activity[]’ . . . .”  Regarding the privacy interest, the court finds that “[t]he information sought by [plaintiff] implicates this categorical privacy interest, since disclosure of Individual X’s name would reveal, from a law enforcement record, the identity of the person, never publicly revealed before . . . who was the subject of the law enforcement investigations and enforcement actions relating to the Bitcoin seized from the 1HQ3 address.”  “[Plaintiff] . . . contests Individual X’s privacy interest in his or her identity because this individual ‘did not ask the Government to conceal his identity[,]’”  but the court finds that “nothing in the record supports the step urged by [plaintiff] of finding that Individual X in some way waived any privacy rights that otherwise attach.”

    “[Plaintiff] offers three purported public interests in disclosing the identity of Individual X, but none satisfy [the] requirements.”  “First, [plaintiff] claims the public has an interest in learning where the money from the Silk Road went . . . .”  The court finds that “[t]his argument suffers from multiple fatal flaws, including that [plaintiff] never explains how revealing Individual X’s identity would help answer this question, since the government has already, in public documents, explained where the stolen Bitcoin went . . . .”  “[Plaintiff] next asserts a public interest in ‘knowing whether [Individual] X was . . . a federal agent, and whether the Department of Justice agreed to forgo prosecution to conceal potential corruption.’”  “This assertion of corruption is intriguing but nonetheless too speculative to meet the ‘demanding . . . standard’ required when claiming a public interest in uncovering alleged government impropriety.”  “Finally, [plaintiff] argues that the public has an interest in learning whether the government ‘allowed suspected criminals to purchase leniency by agreeing to forfeit Silk Road Bitcoin worth billions of dollars.’”  “This is another serious allegation of government corruption that, if adequately supported might very well overcome an otherwise legitimate privacy interest.” However, “[plaintiff] provides no information to support the allegation . . . .”

    “Here, the balance strongly favors nondisclosure.” “‘Where there is no identifiable public interest, the privacy interest protected by Exemption 7(C) prevails because “something, even a modest privacy interest, outweighs nothing every time.”’” “Accordingly, on balance, the government has properly invoked Exemption 7(C) to withhold Individual X’s identity from public disclosure.”
Court Decision Topic(s)
District Court opinions
Exemption 7
Exemption 7(C)
Updated January 31, 2025