Freeman v. FBI, No. 18-2769, 2022 WL 4365734 (D.D.C. Sept. 21, 2022) (Walton, J.)

Freeman v. FBI, No. 18-2769, 2022 WL 4365734 (D.D.C. Sept. 21, 2022) (Walton, J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning plaintiff

Disposition:  Granting defendant’s renewed motion for summary judgment

• Exemption 7(C) & Exemption 7(E):  The court relates that, previously, “[it] denied the defendant’s initial summary judgment motion, which was based on its application of FOIA Exemption 7(E) to (1) internal secure FBI fax numbers; (2) internal FBI e-mail or IP addresses; and (3) FBI intranet and internal web addresses, because the declarant failed to explain the investigative technique or procedure that was at risk of being exposed by their release.”  “However, the Court approved the withholding of the internal e-mail or IP addresses to the extent that they were the same as those found properly withheld under Exemption 7(C).”  “The defendant has now withdrawn its application of Exemption 7(E) to the internal secure fax numbers and properly relies instead on FOIA Exemption 7(C), attesting through the declarant that the ‘numbers were assigned to specific FBI personnel or specific FBI offices or divisions.’”  The court holds that “[defendant] plausibly explains that releasing such information could enable the identification and/or location of specific FBI personnel to whom the numbers are assigned and ‘subject th[o]se employees to harassment, including inappropriate requests for access to information[.]’” 
  
  “This leaves for resolution only the non-public intranet and internal web addresses that the defendant redacted from released records under Exemption 7(E).”  “[Defendant] adequately describes the ‘internal FBI database locations’ sought to be protected and plausibly explains how the release of such information ‘could be used to disrupt or undermine FBI operations’ and aid investigative targets in avoiding detection and circumventing the law.”  “Notably, [defendant] attests that ‘[r]eleasing this type of information . . . renders the associated computer systems vulnerable to attack, which, in turn, jeopardizes the information located at those addresses, which includes sensitive techniques and case strategies used in FBI investigations.’”  “Moreover, in its supplemental brief, the defendant cites cases from this district upholding ‘the application of FOIA Exemption 7(E) for internal identification systems in similar situations.’”
   
• Litigation Considerations, Reasonably Segregable Requirements:  The court relates that,  “[h]ere, [defendant] attests that ‘all documents responsive to [the] [p]laintiff’s request [were reviewed] to achieve maximum disclosure and [e]very effort was made to provide [the] [p]laintiff with all reasonably segregable, non-exempt records.’”  “‘No reasonably segregable, non-exempt portions have been withheld [and] [f]urther description of the information withheld . . . could identify the actual exempt information protected by the FBI.’”  The court finds that “[n]othing in the record calls into question ‘the good-faith presumption afforded’ to the defendant’s declarations.”  “Therefore, the Court finds that the defendant has satisfied its segregability obligation under the FOIA.”