Liounis v. Krebs, No. 18-5351, 2019 WL 7176453 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 19, 2019) (per curiam)

Liounis v. Krebs, No. 18-5351, 2019 WL 7176453 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 19, 2019) (per curiam)

Re:  Request for records concerning requester's criminal case

Disposition:  Granting in part and denying in part government's motion for summary affirmance of district court's grant of government's motion for summary judgment; granting in part and denying in part requester's motion for summary reversal of district court's grant of government's motion for summary judgment

• Exemption 3:  The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit finds that "[t]he district court correctly held that the government properly invoked Exemption 3 to withhold the grand jury transcript and grand jury exhibits as those documents 'would tend to reveal some secret aspect of the grand jury's investigation.'"
   
• Exemption 5, Attorney Work-Product:  The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit finds that "the district court appropriately held that the government properly invoked Exemption 5 to withhold the draft indictment, draft information, and handwritten attorney notes on the indictment under the attorney work-product privilege as those documents were prepared by attorneys in connection with a criminal prosecution."
   
• Litigation Considerations, "Reasonably Segregable" Requirements:  The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit finds that "the district court properly held that all reasonably segregable information from the documents withheld under Exemption 3 was disclosed . . . ."  "The government's Vaughn Index, which provided descriptions of the documents, and the government's declaration, which explained why none of the withheld information could be segregated for release, 'are sufficient to fulfill the agency's obligation to show with "reasonable specificity" why [the] document[s] cannot be further segregated.'"  "Additionally, the district court correctly determined that it need not conduct a segregability analysis as to the documents withheld under Exemption 5."
   
• Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search:  The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit holds that "the district court's November 7, 2018 order be vacated with respect to its ruling on the adequacy of the government's search for responsive records and this case be remanded to the district court for further proceedings on that issue."  "Although the government stated that it searched electronic and physical files, it did not specify the types of searches performed or the search terms used."  "Additionally, the government did not explain whether all files likely to contain responsive materials were searched."