Council on Am.-Islamic Rels.-Wash. v. CBP, No. 20-217, 2020 WL 5891908 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 5, 2020) (Martinez, J.)
Council on Am.-Islamic Rels.-Wash. v. CBP, No. 20-217, 2020 WL 5891908 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 5, 2020) (Martinez, J.)
Re: Request for records concerning CBP's Tactical Analytical Unit Seattle Field Office "'high alert'" stating "'Iranian Supreme Leaders Vows Forceful Revenge after US Kills Maj. General Qassim Suleimani'" and directive that "'all persons (males and females) born after 1961 and born before 2001 with links (POB, travel, Citizenship)'" to Palestine, Lebanon, or Iran be vetted with extra questioning on entry to United States from British Columbia, Canada
Disposition: Denying defendants' motion for summary judgment; granting in part plaintiff's motion for summary judgment
- Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search: "[T]he Court denies summary judgment for the Defendants on this issue and grants it for [plaintiff]," and finds that "Defendants' search was inadequate as a matter of law." The court finds that "Defendants argue in a conclusory fashion that they followed their own judgment in selecting search custodians and that those custodians followed proper search procedures." "Defendants do not adequately explain in briefing why they did not consider to pursue the 'leads' listed by [plaintiff], or adequately explain why it would not be reasonable to search the email of . . . the [Seattle Field Office ("SFO")] Assistant Director, or to identify proper emails to search at CBP Headquarters." "Indeed, Defendants have now agreed to search the emails of [two individuals, including the SFO Assistant Director]."
- Exemption 5, Deliberative Process Privilege: The court relates that defendant withheld "documents appear[ing] to discuss press inquiries about [an] incident." "The Court finds that Defendants have failed to meet their burden to demonstrate Exemption 5 applies to these documents, which do not appear to have been prepared in order to assist in the making of a decision, and instead relate to the release of a public-facing statement describing events after a decision was made."
- Exemption 6: "The Court has examined the records at issue and finds that Defendants have redacted the names of government officials in records not relating to those individuals." "These are not personnel records or similar files." 'Defendants make a valid argument that the release of the names of lower-level individuals could subject them to embarrassment or harassment, however [plaintiff] has also demonstrated that the public interest lies in the release of the names of Assistant Directors and Port Directors playing a key role in the implementation of the policy at issue, which touches on the civil rights of U.S. Citizens and legal permanent residents." "Accordingly, this exemption does not apply to the names of those individuals. Other forms of personal information, including email addresses, are properly redacted."
- Exemption 7(C): "The Court has already ruled that the public interest lies in the release of the names of Assistant Directors and Port Directors playing a key role in the implementation of the policy at issue, which touches on the civil rights of U.S. Citizens and legal permanent residents." "Accordingly, exemption 7(C) does not apply to the names of those individuals."
- Exemption 7(E) & Litigation Considerations, In Camera Inspection: "The Court agrees that Defendants have not 'describe[d] the general nature of the technique or procedure at issue' and that more detail is clearly required under applicable case law." "The Court will order Defendants to revisit their Vaughn index to describe in each instance the general nature of the technique or procedure at issue and to avoid boilerplate language." Also, "[t]he Court agrees with Defendants that [plaintiff] only speculates that the information is publicly known' and that [plaintiff] 'fails to cite to any specific redaction to show that the information is publicly known,' instead relying [on] 'generalities.'" "[Plaintiff] acknowledges it is speculating to a certain extent and requests in camera review." The court finds that "[i]n camera review, not opposed by Defendants, will aid the Court in assessing whether these redacted documents are properly disclosed under FOIA."