Henderson v. DOJ, No. 14-2002, 2016 WL 370703 (D.D.C. Jan. 29, 2016) (Jackson, J.)

Henderson v. DOJ, No. 14-2002, 2016 WL 370703 (D.D.C. Jan. 29, 2016) (Jackson, J.)

Re: Request for "Stenographic Contract Records" concerning plaintiff's trial

Disposition: Granting defendants' motion for summary judgment

• Procedural Requirements, Searching for Responsive Records:  "[T]he Court concludes that the searches for records responsive to [this request] were reasonable under the circumstances of this case."  The court finds that "the budget analyst’s search was conducted using the criminal case number plaintiff provided as a search term, so it was reasonably calculated to locate responsive records."  The court also finds that the search was conducted by "the person 'familiar with stenograph contract records'" and in a location where the records would be located.  The court finds that "EOUSA is obligated to construe plaintiff’s FOIA request liberally[,]" "[b]ut plaintiff's request does not mention grand jury materials, and even a liberal interpretation of the request would not have prompted the EOUSA to search for grand jury materials."  "[I]f plaintiff happens to 'discover[ ] leads' based on the EOUSA's response to Request No. 13-3226, 'he may pursue those leads through a second FOIA request.'"
   
• Exemption 7, Threshold:  The court holds that, "[n]otwithstanding the apparent connection between stenographic services and the EOUSA’s law enforcement function in prosecuting plaintiff’s criminal case, it cannot be said that these expense-related records fall within the scope of Exemption 7."  The court relates that "EOUSA withheld 'the names and related telephone and email address identifying information [about] USAO and related agency attorneys and support employees, including a budget officer and a legal secretary, and United States District Court support clerks and stenograph vendors[.]'"  The court finds that defendant's "general explanation[,]" "that '[a]ll of the information at issue in this case was compiled during the criminal prosecution of [plaintiff]; and, therefore, it was compiled for law enforcement purposes[,]'" "does not necessarily apply to the narrow set of records sought here since the connection to the investigation is highly attenuated."
•  
• Exemption 6:  "[T]he Court concludes that the EOUSA properly withheld the third-party information under Exemption 6."  The court relates that "EOUSA withheld 'the names and related telephone and email address identifying information [about] USAO and related agency attorneys and support employees, including a budget officer and a legal secretary, and United States District Court support clerks and stenograph vendors[.]'"  The court finds that "it is apparent that the third parties' privacy interest is greater than de minimis."  Against that, the court relates that "[d]efendants assert that there is 'no legitimate public interest to be served in the disclosure of the identity and related identifying information of the [third parties mentioned in the responsive records] because [disclosure] will not shed light on the operations and activities of the federal government.'"  "And plaintiff fails to identify any public interest to be served by the disclosure of the protected third-party information."
   
• Procedural Requirements, "Reasonably Segregable" Obligation:  "Based on the agency's supporting declarations and the review of the redacted records themselves, the Court concludes that all reasonably segregable information has been released."