Jones v. DOJ, No. 22-00476, 2025 WL 2732712 (D.D.C. Sept. 25, 2025) (Mehta, J.)

Jones v. DOJ, No. 22-00476, 2025 WL 2732712 (D.D.C. Sept. 25, 2025) (Mehta, J.)

Re: Request for records concerning plaintiff’s prosecution

Disposition:  Granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment

• Litigation Considerations, Evidentiary Showing, Adequacy of Search:  “After the court’s February 2024 order, USAO-EDTN followed the ‘obvious lead’ and recalled potentially responsive records at the Atlanta Records Center.” “Having cured the defect in its previous search, the court now finds that EOUSA’s search was reasonably detailed and followed through on all obvious leads.”
   
• Exemption 5, Attorney Work-Product Privilege & Deliberative Process Privilege: The court relates that “Defendant states that the documents withheld under Exemption 5 include ‘interview notes and prosecution memorandums . . . , drafts and/or unfiled pleadings, and closed case file notes’ detailing recommendations and analysis to decide whether to bring criminal charges, all of which were created in preparing for Plaintiff’s prosecution.”  “Because the documents reveal the government’s ‘analysis of facts and the law relating to . . . Plaintiff’s prosecution,’ . . . [the court finds that] these documents were properly withheld.”  Additionally, the court finds that, “[h]ere, the prosecution memorandum withheld by Defendant was ‘created before federal criminal charges were brought against the Plaintiff’ and was used to ‘assist USAO-EDTN leadership [in deciding] on whether to bring criminal charges against the Plaintiff.’”  “Therefore, it was properly withheld under the deliberative-process privilege.”
   
• Exemption 6; Exemption 7(C):  The court relates that, “[c]iting Exemptions 6 and 7(C), Defendant withheld ‘records from a companion case that were included in the Plaintiff’s criminal case file.’”  “The person to whom these records related was never publicly acknowledged by USAO-EDTN and ultimately their criminal case was dismissed, . . . supporting a strong privacy interest.”  “Because Plaintiff has identified no counterbalancing public interest, the withholdings under Exemptions 6 and 7(C) were appropriate.”
   
• Litigation Considerations, Evidentiary Showing, “Reasonably Segregable” Showing: The court relates that, “[h]ere, Defendant provides a Vaughn index explaining all withholdings, including the pages withheld, a description of the document, the exemptions cited, and a justification.” “Because Defendant’s Vaughn index does ‘indicate, with respect to each document, that any reasonably segregable information has been released,’ . . . Defendant has satisfied the segregability requirement.”