Boyd v. EOUSA, No. 16-5133, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 17066 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 16, 2016) (per curiam)

Boyd v. EOUSA, No. 16-5133, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 17066 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 16, 2016) (per curiam)

Re: Request for records concerning appellant's criminal case

Disposition: Granting agencies' motion for summary affirmance

• Procedural Requirements, Searching for Responsive Records & Exemption 7(C): The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit holds that "[t]he merits of the parties' positions are so clear as to warrant summary action." "The Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys' (EOUSA) search in response to appellant's request for information pertaining to his criminal case was reasonable and in compliance with its obligations[.]" Additionally, the court finds that "[i]t was not necessary for EOUSA to conduct a search for records pertaining to third parties because these records were categorically exempt pursuant to FOIA Exemption 7(C)."
   
• Exemption 7(C): "Regarding EOUSA's categorical withholdings under Exemption 7(C), . . . [the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit holds that] the district court balanced the privacy interests at stake against appellant's asserted public interest in disclosure, and correctly concluded that appellant had failed to 'produce evidence that would warrant a belief by a reasonable person that the alleged Government impropriety might have occurred.'"
   
• Litigation Considerations, In Camera Inspection, Discovery: The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit holds that "[a]ppellant does not challenge the district court's holdings with respect to the four documents that were reviewed in camera." "With respect to the remaining documents, because EOUSA's Vaughn index was sufficiently detailed and demonstrated that the withheld information logically falls within Exemptions 3, 5, 6, and 7(C), 5, . . . the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow for discovery or further in camera review."
   
• Litigation Considerations, Mootness and Other Grounds for Dismissal: The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit holds that "the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives . . . appropriately refused to process appellant's request on the ground that the responsive documents had already been subjected to the full process contemplated by the FOIA."