Honolulu Civil Beat Inc. v. FBI, No. 23-00216, 2025 WL 1112828 (D. Haw. Apr. 1, 2025) (Park, J.)

Honolulu Civil Beat Inc. v. FBI, No. 23-00216, 2025 WL 1112828 (D. Haw. Apr. 1, 2025) (Park, J.)

Re: Request for records concerning investigations and prosecutions of former State Representative and former State Senator

Disposition:  Granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment

• Litigation Considerations, Evidentiary Showing, Declaration:      The court finds that “[t]he FBI has sufficiently demonstrated that disclosure would interfere with ongoing investigations, as detailed in the supporting declarations.”  “[Defendant] explains that releasing the requested information would compromise ongoing investigations and prosecutions by revealing the scope and direction of those investigations, thereby alerting suspects, and enabling them to evade law enforcement.”  “Additionally, disclosure could subject witnesses and law enforcement personnel to intimidation and increase the risk of third parties fabricating evidence.”  “[Defendant] affirms that withholding this information is necessary to preserve the integrity of current investigations and to protect the viability of future prosecutions.”  Additionally, “the Court finds that the FBI’s declarations, independent of the Vaughn index, sufficiently justify withholding the records.”      “As the Court has noted, a Vaughn index is not mandatory, and [defendant’s] declarations provide ample support for the FBI’s position.”  The court also finds that “[plaintiff] offers no evidence to refute the [defendant’s] declarations.”
   
• Litigation Considerations, Discovery:  The court holds that “[plaintiff’s] request for additional information or formal discovery is unwarranted.”  “The FBI’s detailed, non-conclusory, and good-faith declarations establish a sufficient factual basis for withholding the records.”
   
• Litigation Considerations, Evidentiary Showing, Adequacy of Search:  The court holds that “the FBI has met its burden of demonstrating the adequacy of its search.”  “[Defendant] confirms that the FBI conducted its search using the comprehensive Central Records System (“CRS”) and affirms the adequacy of the methodology.”  “The FBI searched indices through its case management system, Sentinel, using the [terms reflecting the subject matter] within the requested timeframe of September 1, 2014, to February 22, 2022, and found responsive records.”      “[Plaintiff] has not provided any information suggesting that responsive records would be located outside of the CRS, and [defendant] asserts that there is no reasonable basis to believe that searching elsewhere in the system would yield additional responsive records.”  “The FBI’s search was reasonably calculated to locate all relevant documents, thereby satisfying FOIA requirements.”
   
• Exemption 7(A):  The court holds that “[t]he FBI meets [the] requirements.”  “It is a law enforcement agency, specifically, a federal investigative agency.”  “The records at issue were compiled during investigations into [the subjects].”      “[Defendant’s] declaration confirms that the records relate to enforcement proceedings.”  “The FBI’s declarations demonstrate that releasing the records would risk compromising ongoing investigations and enforcement efforts.”
   
• Exemption 3; Exemption 5, Deliberative Process Privilege; Exemption 6; Exemption 7(C); Exemption 7(D); Exemption 7(E):  The court further holds that, “[e]ven if Exemption 7(A) does not entirely justify withholding the requested records, the FBI has properly withheld records under several other FOIA exemptions.”      “Specifically, Exemptions 3, 5, 6, 7(C), 7(D), and 7(E) independently and collectively justify the nondisclosure of the records.”
  
  Regarding Exemption 3, the court holds that “[t]he FBI properly withheld certain records pursuant to Exemption 3 in conjunction with four other statutes:  Rule 6(E) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (“Fed. R. Crim. P.”), the Pen Register Act, the National Security Act of 1947, and the Bank Secrecy Act.” “First, the Fed. R. Crim. P. Rule 6(E) prohibits government attorneys and others from ‘disclosing a matter occurring before the grand jury.’”  “Because the requested records contain protected information that falls under this rule, the FBI properly withheld them.”  “Second, the Pen Register Act protects from disclosure information pertaining to certain court ‘orders authorizing or approving the installation and use of a pen register or a trap and trace device,’ and information pertaining to ‘the existence of the[] pen register or trap and [trace] device or the existence of the investigation.’”  “The FBI appropriately withheld the identities and phone numbers of the individuals targeted by the pen registers and/or individuals whose information was collected due to their contact with the target, the location of the devices, information gathered by the device, and related court documents.” “Third, the National Security Act of 1947 requires the Director of National Intelligence (“DNI”) to protect intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure.”  “[Defendant’s] declaration explains that the Intelligence Community Directive 700 enforces this protection.”  “As a member of the Intelligence Community, the FBI must comply with this directive.”  “Thus, the FBI properly withheld the records.”  “Finally, the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”) exempts reports and records collected under its authority from FOIA disclosure.”  “As [defendant] explained, ‘within the documents at issue there exists information obtained through the BSA during criminal investigative activities.’” “The FBI is therefore legally prohibited from disclosing any details related to this information.”
  
  Regarding Exemption 5, the court holds that “[t]he FBI properly withheld deliberative materials that reflect internal agency recommendations, opinions, and legal analyses prepared in anticipation of litigation or investigative actions.”  “These records include legal memoranda, internal communications, and draft reports which, if disclosed, would expose the agency’s deliberative processes and legal strategies.”
  
  Regarding Exemption 6, the court holds that “[t]he FBI appropriately withheld personal information of third parties – including witnesses, suspects, and law enforcement personnel – whose privacy interests outweigh any public interest in disclosure.”
  
  Regarding Exemption 7(C), the court holds that “the FBI justifiably withheld third-party identities connected to the investigation, as courts recognize strong privacy interests implicated by such disclosures, particularly in the context of law enforcement investigations.”
  
  Regarding Exemption 7(D), the court finds that “[t]he FBI demonstrated that certain information was provided by confidential sources with assurances of express or implied confidentiality.”  “Disclosing this information could jeopardize ongoing investigations and deter future cooperation with law enforcement.”
  
  Regarding Exemption 7(E), the court relates that “[t]he FBI invoked this exemption to withhold non-public investigative methods and details, including certain aspects of publicly known techniques.” The court finds that “[d]isclosing this information would compromise the effectiveness of these techniques and hinder future investigations.”
   
• Litigation Considerations, Evidentiary Showing, “Reasonably Segregable” Showing: The court holds that, “[a]s [defendant’s] declaration reflects, the FBI determined that ‘145 pages could be released in full as [there is] no foreseeable harm to an interest protected by a FOIA exemption.’”  “Out of the 267 pages, the FBI determined that 122 pages are withheld in full as duplicates.”  “Accordingly, there is no further non-exempt information that can be reasonably segregated and released without revealing exempt information.”