Huddleston v. FBI, No. 20-00447, 2023 WL 8260881 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 29, 2023) (Mazzant, J.)

Huddleston v. FBI, No. 20-00447, 2023 WL 8260881 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 29, 2023) (Mazzant, J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning deceased 27-year-old Democratic National Committee employee

Disposition:  Denying plaintiff’s motion to permit counsel to view evidence

• Litigation Considerations, In Camera Inspection:  The court relates that “[t]he FBI submitted an FD-302 document for in camera, ex parte review to demonstrate that the FBI was not playing ‘hot potato’ with the personal laptop and that Exemptions 7(D) and 7(E) apply to the personal laptop . . . .”   “[Plaintiff] argues that the Court should permit his counsel, as a matter of due process, to view the entire FD-302 document pursuant to an ‘attorney eyes only’ protective order . . . .”  “[Plaintiff] also raises an issue with the FBI potentially submitting unsworn and unauthenticated evidence ex parte via the FD-302 document . . . .”  “As an initial matter, the Court does not need to consider whether an in camera review of the . . . document is appropriate.”  “The FBI’s motion to submit the document for in camera review was unopposed . . . .”  “Thus, both parties agree that the in camera review is appropriate . . . .”  “The only remaining issue for the Court is whether the ex parte nature of the in camera review is appropriate.”  The court finds that “[i]n the context of FOIA, courts often evaluate evidence in camera and ex parte.”  “Neither the Court nor the parties can identify a case where a court has considered whether to review in camera, ex parte a document withheld under a FOIA exemption to determine whether different documents have been validly withheld under a FOIA exemption.”  “Despite this lack of guidance in either direction, the Court does not find this circumstance sufficient to act as an exception to FOIA exemptions and require the disclosure of statutorily withheld information.”
   
• Exemption 6; Exemption 7(C); Exemption 7(D); Exemption 7(E):  The court finds that “the Court finds that no redactions within the FD-302 document were improper.”  “The FBI withheld this document under FOIA Exemptions 6, 7(C), 7(D), and 7(E) . . . .”  “However, the Court has partially granted summary judgment in favor of the FBI, finding that the FBI properly withheld the FD-302 document (among many others) . . . .”  “The Court is not persuaded by [plaintiff’s] arguments . . . .”  “Therefore, the Court will not reconsider the Prior Order with respect to the FD-302 document.”  “Contrary to [plaintiff’s] arguments that some of the redacted information may have made its way into the public domain, the FBI may still validly withhold that information under Exemptions 6 and 7(C).”  “‘[T]hat otherwise private information may have been at one time or in some way in the “public” domain does not mean that a person irretrievably loses his or her privacy interests in it.’”  “Thus, even when an individual’s private information has been publicly disseminated in the past, the individual ‘still retain[s] substantial interests in preventing the further dissemination of the information.’”