Jud. Watch, Inc. v. DOJ, No. 19-02743, 2022 WL 2915605 (D.D.C. July 25, 2022) (Nichols, J.)

Jud. Watch, Inc. v. DOJ, No. 19-02743, 2022 WL 2915605 (D.D.C. July 25, 2022) (Nichols, J.)

Re:  Request for electronic communication that initiated FBI counterintelligence investigation of President Trump’s 2016 campaign

Disposition:  Granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment; denying plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment and motion for in camera inspection

• Exemption 6 & Exemption 7(C):  “The Court believes the government has sufficiently justified the redactions.”  “The government has explained that the remaining redacted names are of non-senior executive officials at the GS-14 and GS-15 levels.”  “Those redactions are therefore not of the names of senior Department officials, but of mid-level civil servants.”  “Neither official held a policy-making position.”  “To be sure, there is a significant public interest in knowing what officials were involved in the initiation of this investigation.”  “The origin of an FBI investigation into a presidential campaign is of obvious public significance.”  “And the FBI’s potential for political influence is well known.”  “And [plaintiff] relies on a number of claimed irregularities in the initiation of this investigation.”  “But any potential public interest in the names of these officials evaporates in light of their positions and roles.”  “Neither is particularly senior or in a policy-making role.”  “And neither had decision-making authority for the matters described in the document.”  “There is therefore little legitimate public interest in disclosure of their names.”  “Balanced against the public’s low interest in disclosure is the potential for disclosure to result in a significant invasion of personal privacy.”  “Given the high-profile nature of this investigation, disclosure of the two names could reasonably lead to the officials being harassed with requests for unauthorized disclosures of information about the investigation, or even to their being targeted with violence.”  “Because the Department’s professional staff have a substantial privacy interest in not having their identities released, the redactions are appropriate under at least Exemption 7(C).”
   
• Exemption 7(D):  “The Court agrees with the government that summary judgment is appropriate as to these redactions.”  “It has provided a clear rationale for withholding ‘the identity of the source and the information provided by the source’ – here, a foreign government – because of an express assurance of confidentiality.”  “Plaintiff’s arguments to the contrary are without merit.”  “[Plaintiff] has offered nothing more than speculation about whether the 7(D) redactions were broader than that information obtained through express assurances of confidentiality.”  “It has provided no basis to discount [defendant’s] Declarations, which assert that the information was redacted based on these express assurances.”  “And [plaintiff’s] publicity argument fares no better.”  “Simply because the events at issue have themselves been subject to publicity does not mean that the particular information that was redacted here has been publicly reported, nor does it follow that government confirmation of information already made public by other means would necessarily be harmless.”
   
• Exemption 7(E):  The court relates that “[t]he government asserts 7(E) exemptions to redact (i) sensitive file numbers and (ii) the identity [and location] of FBI counter-intelligence squads and specific legal attaché offices.”  “The file numbers are coded and include information about the FBI’s investigative processes.”  The court relates that “[plaintiff] does not challenge the redaction of the file numbers but asserts that the government has failed to demonstrate how disclosure of the identity and location of FBI Counter-Intelligence Squads and participating legat offices poses a threat to the interests of this investigation.”  “The Court agrees with the government.”  “As an initial matter, the relevant inquiry is not whether the information poses a threat to this particular investigation, but to criminal investigative techniques generally.”  “[Plaintiff] made no arguments applicable to the correct legal standard.”  “And even if construed favorably, the arguments [plaintiff] makes lack merit.”  “As the government argued, disclosure of the identity and location of counter-intelligence squads, and various legat offices and foreign governments that work with the FBI, may permit sophisticated international criminals to avoid or evade those locations and thereby decrease the effectiveness of such activities and cooperation.”
   
• Exemption 1:  The court relates that “[t]he government asserts that about four lines of text on page 3 should be redacted because it contained ‘information received from a Deputy Chief of Mission . . . and informal diplomatic channels.’”  “The government relies on Sections 1.4(b) and (d) of Executive Order 13526, which includes among its list of classifiable materials government records that pertain [to] ‘foreign government information’ and ‘foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources.’”  The court relates that “[plaintiff’s] supplemental memorandum contends that the government’s explanations for its redaction ‘do[ ] not logically fit State Department’s asserted exemptions.’”  “[Plaintiff] failed to include any further elaboration of how the explanations do not fit the redactions, but it continues to press its position.”  “The Court will not invent reasons to doubt the government’s declarations.”  “In any event, the Court sees no reason to doubt them.”  “They are clear and facially sufficient.”  “[Plaintiff] has provided no reason to dispute the sufficiency of this redaction.”
   
• Litigation Considerations, “Reasonably Segregable” Requirements:  The court holds that “the government has clearly carried its burden.”  “It has provided a detailed justification of its redactions; while it has made several, most are small and discrete, and the government has provided detailed explanations for all redactions that [plaintiff] contests.”
   
• ​​​​​​​Litigation Considerations, In Camera Inspection:  “The Court agrees with the government.”  “The Court found the declarations and redactions sufficiently clear that in camera review would not assist its review.”  “While in camera review can be efficient, particularly when the document is so short . . . here it is unnecessary . . . .”