Jabar v. DOJ, No. 22-226, 2023 WL 2169960 (2d Cir. Feb. 23, 2023) (per curiam)

Jabar v. DOJ, No. 22-226, 2023 WL 2169960 (2d Cir. Feb. 23, 2023) (per curiam)

Re:  Request for records concerning requester’s criminal case

Disposition:  Affirming district court’s grant of government’s motion for summary judgment

• Procedural Requirements & Litigation Considerations:  The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit relates that “[the requester] argues that the government’s disclosure obligations under FOIA are expanded, or in some manner altered, by his rights under [Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), which concerned “the government's obligations to disclose exculpatory evidence”], and thus the district court erred in granting summary judgment.”  “[The court] disagree[s].”  The court finds that “FOIA has no special rules or exceptions that apply when the documents sought relate to a criminal case.”  “It is certainly conceivable that a FOIA request could elicit documents that would undermine a requester’s criminal conviction, including by demonstrating a Brady violation.”  “But that possibility does not alter the government’s obligations under FOIA.”  “[The requester’s] effort to conflate these two doctrines defies both the statutory structure of FOIA and our case law, and the district court properly rejected his argument.”
   
• Litigation Considerations, Summary Judgment:  The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit holds that “[s]ummary judgment was properly granted here.”  “As the district court determined, [the government’s] Declaration describes the nature of the government’s search, the various justifications for the documents withheld, and the government’s efforts to provide [the requester] with all reasonably segregable non-exempt information.”  “[The requester] has provided no basis to call [defendant’s] Declaration into question, and that declaration is therefore sufficient to carry the government’s burden.”  “Accordingly, the district court properly granted summary judgment to the government.”
   
• Litigation Considerations, In Camera Inspection:  The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit relates that “[the requester] also contends that the district court erred in declining to conduct an in camera review of documents withheld in full to determine if any portions of those documents were segregable.”  “But the decision whether to conduct an in camera review of documents withheld in response to a FOIA request is one that falls within the informed discretion of the district court, which [the court] will not disturb lightly.”  “Here, the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, adopted in full by the district court, considered [the government] Declaration’s detailed justifications for withholding documents in full.”  “It further noted that [the requester] had not provided any basis to question [the government’s] affirmation that documents withheld in full were either entirely subject to a FOIA exemption or included only information ‘so intertwined with exempt material’ that ‘no information could be reasonably segregated for release.’”  “Because [the government’s] Declaration was sufficiently detailed, and because [the requester] has failed to present any argument or justification for questioning that declaration, the district court acted well within its discretion in declining to conduct in camera review of those documents withheld in full.”