Cannady v. EOUSA, No. 19-2832, 2022 WL 856201 (D.D.C. Mar. 23, 2022) (Chutkan, J.)

Cannady v. EOUSA, No. 19-2832, 2022 WL 856201 (D.D.C. Mar. 23, 2022) (Chutkan, J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning criminal informant in plaintiff's criminal case

Disposition:  Granting defendant's motion for summary judgment

• Exemption 7(C):  "[Plaintiff] does not dispute that [the third-party subject of the request] maintains a privacy interest in the records sought; the decision to share what he said to the FBI and what was seized from his home and vehicles is his alone."  "[Plaintiff] however, argues that [the third party's] privacy interest is lessened because he was convicted."  The court finds that "while a conviction weakens a person's privacy interest, it does not eliminate it."  "[Plaintiff] claims the public has an interest in uncovering alleged law enforcement misconduct involving [the third party]."  The court notes that "[e]ven though the trial court in [plaintiff's] case found that there had been a Brady violation, the document calling [an FBI agent's] testimony into question was disclosed to [plaintiff], the Fourth Circuit found that the failure to disclose the document was not material, and [plaintiff] has alleged no other facts from which the court could infer prosecutorial misconduct."  Therefore, the court finds that "[plaintiff] has . . . failed to show a public interest in disclosure."  "And while [the third party's] privacy interests in the records sought might be somewhat diminished, that privacy interest is still enough for the records to be subject to categorical exclusion from disclosure under Exemption 7(C)." 
  
  "[Plaintiff] argues in the alternative that because '[l]aw enforcement immediately made [the contents of the requested materials] known in news reports,' the materials are subject to disclosure under the public domain doctrine."  "That doctrine provides that 'materials normally immunized from disclosure under FOIA lose their protective cloak once disclosed and preserved in a permanent public record.''  "A plaintiff, however, must 'point to specific information in the public domain that appears to duplicate that being withheld.'"  The court finds that "[plaintiff] has not done so; his argument is supported only by his conclusory statement that there were news reports revealing the information sought."  "Without specific information, [plaintiff] cannot invoke the public domain doctrine to defeat the exclusion of the requested records under Exemption 7(C)."
   
• Procedural Requirements, "Reasonably Segregable" Obligation:  This categorical exclusion also moots Cannady's arguments that EOUSA was required to reasonably segregate any non-exempt information it possessed. Because the records were categorically exempt, there was no need to segregate information.