Leopold v. DOJ, No. 19-3192, 2025 WL 870321 (D.D.C. Mar. 20, 2025) (Contreras, J.)

Leopold v. DOJ, No. 19-3192, 2025 WL 870321 (D.D.C. Mar. 20, 2025) (Contreras, J.)

Re:  Request for report crafted by independent monitor pursuant to deferred prosecution agreement with bank charged with violating anti-money-laundering and sanctions compliance laws

Disposition:  Denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment; denying plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary judgment

• Exemption 8; Litigation Considerations, Evidentiary Showing, Foreseeable Harm Showing:  “[The] Court previously held that the Monitor Report may be withheld under Exemption 8, as it qualifies it as an ‘examination report’ related to the regulation of financial institutions.”  The court observes that “DOJ argues that the disclosure of the Monitor Report would cause foreseeable harm, specifically regarding the security and integrity of financial institutions.”  “It identifies three harms:  impairing financial crime prosecutions, hindering banking regulation, and threatening institutional security, all of which fall under Exemption 8’s protections.”  “It also contends that the harm to prosecutions and deferred prosecutions of financial institutions, such as HSBC, is crucial to maintaining financial security and integrity.”  “It explains that these concerns align with Exemption 8’s intent to safeguard both individual financial institutions and the broader industry.”  “The Court found, and it continues to agree here, that the Monitor Report is either directly ‘contained in’ or ‘related to’ such examination reports, and the broad scope of Exemption 8 covers all information in the report.”      “The Court also found that, though [the judge who oversaw the underlying] First Amendment analysis focused on judicial documents and could allow for redactions based on narrower harms, the same approach is not taken when deciding whether withholding is appropriate under FOIA.”  “As such, Exemption 8’s broader protections against disclosure of information related to financial institutions apply.”
   
• Litigation Considerations, In Camera Inspection:  “Although the Court acknowledges that DOJ has provided abundant evidence that disclosing any portion of the Monitor Report would result in foreseeable harm and it is not contemplating discovery or a bench trial, the Court also finds that it will gain important context and better understanding of the issues at play if it reviews [the judge in the underlying proceeding’s] redactions . . . .”  “[T]he Court is within its discretion to use in camera review to determine whether portions of the redacted Monitor Report should be disclosed in light of the arguments presented by the parties.”  “Accordingly, the Court holds that, within thirty days of this opinion, DOJ must submit the redacted Monitor Report for in camera review.”