Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. CBP, No. 14-1217, 2017 WL 1131875 (D.D.C. Mar. 24, 2017) (Walton, J.)

Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. CBP, No. 14-1217, 2017 WL 1131875 (D.D.C. Mar. 24, 2017) (Walton, J.)

Re: Request for records concerning defendant's Analytical Framework for Intelligence ("AFI") system

Disposition: Granting defendant's renewed motion for summary judgment; denying plaintiff's renewed motion for summary judgment

• Exemption 7(E): "The Court . . . concludes that the defendant has satisfied its burden of establishing that the disclosure of the . . . records at issue risks circumvention of the law." The court first notes that "plaintiff does not challenge . . . [the] threshold requirement." The court then finds "that the disclosure of records detailing the function, access, navigation, and capabilities of the AFI system, which 'enhances [DHS's] ability to identify, apprehend, and prosecute individuals who pose a potential law enforcement or security risk, and aids in the enforcement of customs and immigration laws,' . . . presents a risk that could facilitate circumvention of the law that is logically connected to the content of the withheld documents[.]" Additionally, "[t]he Court agrees [with defendant] that disclosure details regarding products or services utilized by the defendant to search, organize, or report information in the AFI system presents a risk of circumvention of the law when those records could reasonably be used by potential bad actors to thwart the defendant's law enforcement efforts." Also, "the Court is satisfied that the disclosure of the sources of data utilized by the AFI system risks circumvention of the law because the data sources 'could reasonably allow a person to recognize identifiers that law enforcement use to query' the defendant's information databases and thus circumvent detection." Responding to plaintiff's argument, the court finds that "nothing in the FOIA's language suggests that Exemption 7(E)'s scope is limited to records compiled in connection with criminal investigations."
   
• Litigation Considerations, "Reasonably Segregable" Requirements: The court holds that "[a]lthough [defendant's] Declaration merely recites the segregability standard, . . . the Vaughn index provides greater insight into the contents and length of each withheld document, . . . and when read in conjunction with the declarations, the Court concludes that the defendant's has provided 'a detailed justification,' as opposed to 'just conclusory statements,' showing that it has complied with the segregability requirement."