Burnett v. DOJ, No. 21-5092, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 35872 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 3, 2021) (per curiam)

Burnett v. DOJ, No. 21-5092, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 35872 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 3, 2021) (per curiam)

Re:  Request for records concerning methods used to identify plaintiff in controlled drug purchase and his eventual criminal prosecution in 2012

Disposition:  Granting government's motion for summary affirmance

• Procedural Requirements, Searching for Responsive Records & Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search:  The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit holds that "[i]n the proceedings below, the district court correctly determined that the agency had satisfied its obligation to construe appellant's FOIA request liberally, . . . and that the agency was not obligated to create any records in response . . . ."  "The district court also correctly concluded that the agency had satisfied its burden to show that it had 'made a good faith effort to conduct a search for the requested records, using methods which can reasonably be expected to produce the information requested.'"
   
• Exemptions 6 & 7(C):  The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit holds that "[t]he declaration that the agency has provided to justify the withholdings was sufficient to establish that the information was properly withheld under the FOIA."  "The declaration states that the agency redacted certain types of responsive documents totaling 41 pages – including DEA Form 6s, a search and seizure warrant, and D.C. Metropolitan arrest and seizure reports – and that an additional five pages were withheld in full."  "DEA Form 6s, search warrants, and arrest and seizure reports are generally replete with information that, if released, would reveal the private information of law enforcement officers and third parties." "In the absence of any overriding public interest in the dissemination of this private information, invocation of Exemptions 6 and 7(C) was justified."
   
• Exemption 7(D):  The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit relates that "[t]he declarant further avers that additional withheld information consisted of confidential source information, the release of which could jeopardize ongoing investigations and endanger the sources themselves — an averment that this court finds was sufficient to support invocation of Exemption 7(D)."
   
• Exemption 7(E):  The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit holds that "[t]he declaration also sufficiently justified the agency's invocation of Exemption 7(E) . . . because it states that the agency withheld information that would reveal sensitive law enforcement techniques and procedures, the release of which 'might increase the risk that a law will be violated or that past violators will escape legal consequences' . . . ."
   
• Exemption 7(F):  The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit relates that "the declarant avers that the agency withheld names of law enforcement personnel in order to protect individuals' physical safety."  The court holds that "[t]hese statements are sufficient to justify the agency's invocation of Exemption 7(F), especially given appellant's failure to present any argument on appeal challenging the district court's conclusions in this regard."
   
• Litigation Considerations, Vaughn Index/Declaration & In Camera Inspection:  "While [the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit] hold[s] that the agency's declaration suffices, the broad generalities it asserts and its failure to tie them with any level of precision to the particular content of the documents at issue here survives in part because appellant has not raised a specific objection to the sufficiency of the declaration on appeal."  "Instead, appellant's primary argument is that the district court should have undertaken in camera review of the records."  "But this court has long held that in camera review is not required."  "And while the declaration here is not a model of clarity regarding the scope of the agency's withholdings, this court cannot conclude that the district court abused its discretion in denying appellant's request for in camera review of the records at issue."