Johnson v. FBI, No. 14-1720, 2015 WL 4630227 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 4, 2015) (Pratter, J.)

Johnson v. FBI, No. 14-1720, 2015 WL 4630227 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 4, 2015) (Pratter, J.)

Re: Request for records concerning FBI's investigation of attempted robbery of Pines Bank in Indiana

Disposition: Denying defendant's motion for summary judgment; denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment

• Exemption 7(A):  "[T]he Court . . . order[s] the FBI to supplement its filings."  The court first finds that Exemption 7(A) is possible in this instance.  The court finds that "[t]here is very little case law addressing the issue of whether collateral attacks on criminal convictions are themselves 'enforcement proceedings' under the FOIA."  "However, logic suggests that the existence of a pending motion [under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate]  makes it reasonably foreseeable that an enforcement proceeding (i.e., a new trial) will take place, leading to the expectation that Exemption 7(A) may apply to protect materials whose release could reasonably be expected to interfere with that new trial."  "To be sure, proceedings in connection with a § 2255 motion are not, in and of themselves, enforcement proceedings because they are not directly related to prosecuting the defendant."  "Nonetheless, Exemption 7(A) may apply whenever a specific enforcement proceeding is pending or prospective."  Additionally, "[t]he Court is not persuaded by [plaintiff's] argument that the grounds articulated for the application of Exemption 7(A) are insufficient because there are no facts to suggest that [plaintiff's client] would actually use the withheld information improperly."

"However, at the same time, the Court finds that the FBI has not adequately asserted Exemption 7(A) categorically in this case."  The court finds that "each of the articulated types of harm is contingent upon the assumption that the information is not already public" because "if such information has, in fact, been used at trial, then its disclosure at this stage of the litigation can hardly be said to interfere with prospective enforcement proceedings on the grounds articulated by the FBI."  "The only grounds on which the FBI could withhold such documents would be if they have never been released, and their release could reasonably be expected to interfere with prospective enforcement proceedings."  The court finds that "[t]he applicability of Exemption 7(A) therefore depends on 'the subject matter which each individual record contains,' rather than 'upon the category of records,' . . . and the Court finds that a Vaughn index (or at least a substantively more detailed or more specific affidavit) is required to show that the investigative file does not contain segregable portions that could be disclosed without risk of interfering with [plaintiff's client's] trial."

• Exemptions 3, 5, 6, 7(C), 7(D) & 7(E):  The court finds that "[t]he FBI cites to several other FOIA exemptions as grounds for redacting or otherwise not disclosing certain documents, but the FBI has not identified the withheld information with sufficient detail such that the Court may know which documents were made part of the public record at [plaintiff's client's] trial and which were not, and if not, why not."  "Therefore, the Court will deny the FBI's motion for summary judgment as to the other FOIA exemptions."  Additionally, with regards to some of these exemptions, the court finds that "the FBI provides no detail as to which documents were withheld on these grounds."