Jackson v. DOJ, No. 14-0192, 2019 WL 4750261 (D.D.C. Sept. 27, 2019) (Jackson, J.)

Jackson v. DOJ, No. 14-0192, 2019 WL 4750261 (D.D.C. Sept. 27, 2019) (Jackson, J.)

Re:  Requests for "'copy of the Title III interception of wire, oral, and electronic communication approval letters order applications and all other documents that are a part of the electronic surveillance'" of two specific phone numbers, as well as certain records concerning plaintiff

Disposition:  Granting defendant's renewed motion for summary judgment

• Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search:  "[T]he Court holds that defendants conducted an adequate search."  The court finds that "Defendants' declaration set forth the search terms and type of search performed, identified which systems were searched, and averred that all files likely to contain responsive materials were searched."  The court finds that "defendants searched the two systems within the Division that would have records about Title III requests related to plaintiff and the phone numbers he identified in his FOIA requests."
   
• Exemption 3:  The court only addresses plaintiff's public domain argument and finds that "the records he requests from the Criminal Division are not in the public domain and are protected from disclosure pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2518(8)(b)."  "In this case, while plaintiff has submitted exhibits showing that portions of certain intercepted communications were played for the jury at his trial, those communications are not the same information that is being withheld:  the records of the requests to apply for Title III warrants and the agency's internal memoranda concerning the approval of those requests."
   
• Exemption 5, Attorney Work-Product:  "The Court finds that each of [the withheld] documents was prepared by attorneys working for the government, or someone working at the direction of such an attorney, for the purpose of obtaining a wiretap in anticipation of litigation – namely, the criminal prosecution of the plaintiff in this case."  "Accordingly, they are covered by the work product privilege and fall under Exemption 5."  Additionally, the court finds that "[b]ecause defendants properly withhold all of the responsive documents to plaintiff's requests on the basis of the attorney work product privilege, their entire contents are exempt from disclosure under the FOIA, and so defendants are not required to segregate any portions of the records for disclosure."
   
• Exemptions 6 & 7(C):  "[T]he Court holds that the Division properly withheld [certain] personal information under Exemptions 7(C) and 6."  The court finds that "Defendants maintain that releasing this information would result an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."  "Law enforcement personnel have a strong privacy interest in avoiding disclosure of their personal information in this matter."  "And investigation targets, subjects, and witnesses have a privacy interest in not being unfairly associated publicly with criminal activity."  Additionally, the court finds that "Defendants aver that disclosure would not serve the public interest since it would not add to the public's understanding of how the Division works or how well it performs its duties, . . . and plaintiff has presented no public interest that would warrant disclosing the information."