Myrick v. Johnson, No. 15-1451, 2016 WL 4153610 (D.D.C. Aug. 4, 2016) (Sullivan, J.)

Date: 
Thursday, August 4, 2016

Myrick v. Johnson, No. 15-1451, 2016 WL 4153610 (D.D.C. Aug. 4, 2016) (Sullivan, J.)

Re: Request for records concerning undercover operation

Disposition: Granting defendant's motion for summary judgment

  • Exemption 7(E): The court holds that "[d]efendant has demonstrated logically why its Glomar response is appropriate under Exemption 7(E)." The court explains that "[d]efendant's Glomar response is authorized under Exemption 7(E) because an undercover operation is not known to the public and acknowledging its existence or non-existence would therefore increase the risk of circumvention of the law." Additionally, the court finds that "[p]laintiff does not offer any facts that indicate 'contrary evidence in the record' or 'evidence of agency bad faith.'" The court finds that "Exemption 7(E) only requires a logical demonstration of the risk that the law would be circumvented, and Defendant has met this standard."
Topic: 
District Court
Exemption 7E
Updated January 18, 2017