Judicial Watch, Inc. v. DOJ, No. 19-573, 2019 WL 6329401 (D.D.C. Nov. 26, 2019) (Boasberg, J.)

Judicial Watch, Inc. v. DOJ, No. 19-573, 2019 WL 6329401 (D.D.C. Nov. 26, 2019) (Boasberg, J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning contact between private attorney and former FBI General Counsel

Disposition:  Denying defendant's motion for partial summary judgment

• Exemption 6, Glomar:  "[T]he Court . . . den[ies] Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment."  First, the court finds that "the only discernible privacy interests implicated by revealing the existence of the requested records involve concealing [the private attorney's] identity and his relationship to [the former FBI General Counsel]."  "But any risk of invasion evaporated once [the former FBI General Counsel] publicly testified that he had received documents from [the private attorney], as well as met with and spoken to him on multiple occasions in 2016."  "To the extent that any responsive documents may contain specific details that would cause injury or embarrassment beyond that already done, the FBI may, of course, seek to subsequently redact or withhold material, but it has shown no cognizable privacy interest in concealing these records' existence."  Moreover, the court finds that "[the former FBI General Counsel] has already publicly disclosed [the private attorney's] status as an informant."  The court finds that "[h]aving so disclosed, the Government cannot now fall back on Glomar, refusing to confirm or deny whether records related to [the private attorney] and [the former FBI General Counsel] exist."  "That ship has already sailed."  Second, the court finds that "Defendant has identified no privacy interest adequate to justify its Glomar response."  "No balancing is thus necessary."  "Defendant must – at a minimum – confirm or deny whether the records Plaintiff is seeking exist."  "If they do, Defendant must either turn them over or explain the reasoning behind its withholding."