Navigators Ins. Co. v. DOJ, No. 15-329, 2016 WL 67691 (D. Conn. Jan. 5, 2016) (Arterton, J.)
Navigators Ins. Co. v. DOJ, No. 15-329, 2016 WL 67691 (D. Conn. Jan. 5, 2016) (Arterton, J.)
Re: Request for certain records concerning four criminal cases
Disposition: Denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment; denying as moot in part and denying in part plaintiff's motion to strike; granting in part and denying in part defendant's motion for summary judgment
- Litigation Considerations, Relief: The court finds that "[i]n this case, there is no dispute that the DOJ did not comply with FOIA's deadlines." However, "[p]laintiffs cite no authority for the proposition that an agency’s violation of FOIA's deadlines entitles the requester to automatic disclosure of the requested documents without any analysis of the agency’s claimed exemptions."
- Litigation Considerations, Relief: "[T]he Court declines to [grant plaintiffs a declaratory judgment]." The court explains that "[p]laintiffs have not alleged a pattern or practice of delay, and the Court will not, in any event, 'draw general conclusions about the [DOJ’s] agency-wide patterns and practices from its handling of one case.'" "Nor have Plaintiffs claimed that they are likely to file another request for documents in the near future." "There would, in short, be no 'implications for practical enforcement upon the parties' if the Court granted Plaintiffs a declaratory judgment that the DOJ violated FOIA."
- Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search: The court denies plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in part. The court finds that "[p]laintiffs here have made no claim that Defendant failed to conduct a thorough search, nor have they introduced any evidence from which such a conclusion could reasonably be reached." "The Court agrees that the DOJ’s delay in this case was egregious." "Nonetheless, this delayed espousal of documents does not alone create 'concerns ... so great ... as to convince the [C]ourt that defendant[’]s search methods are objectively unreasonable.'"
The court also denies in part defendant's motion for summary judgment. The court finds that "The DOJ has failed to meet its initial burden of demonstrating that it 'has conducted a search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents.'" The court relates that defendant's "'declaration . . . does not explain the nature of the search conducted, including whether both electronic and paper files were searched, or who conducted the searches,' . . . which databases were searched, or what search terms were used, nor does it ''aver[ ] that all files likely to contain responsive materials ... were searched.''"
- Exemption 7(C): The court holds that defendant's use of Exemption 7(C) was appropriate. The court relates that "[p]laintiffs here do not contest the DOJ’s application of Exemption 7(C) to any particular document, but rather argue that as a general matter, 'the public has an interest in obtaining these records[.]'" The court finds that "[p]laintiffs have made no argument regarding how the specific documents they seek here are likely to advance the interest they claim." "Nor have they adduced anything more than 'a bare suspicion' that DOJ officials acted improperly by affording certain defendants preferential treatment." "As a result, [plaintiff's] arguments do not suffice to demonstrate that the public interest in the withheld documents outweighs the privacy interests of cooperating witnesses, third parties, government personnel, and law enforcement personnel." The court relates that "[p]laintiffs attempt to salvage their claim by asserting that the privacy interests alleged here are in fact insignificant because the individual defendants in the criminal cases 'have been publically charged . . . and ultimately pled guilty in plea agreements with the government.'" "This argument is, however, foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s holding in Reporters Committee that individuals have a privacy interest even as to information that has previously been publicly disclosed."
- Litigation Considerations, In Camera Inspection: "[T]he Court finds that the DOJ’s declarations are sufficiently detailed with respect to the claimed exemptions that in camera review is unnecessary."
- Litigation Considerations, "Reasonably Segregable" Requirements: The court finds that "[plaintiff] has failed to ''specifically rebut'' the presumption that the DOJ has complied with its ''obligation to disclose reasonably segregable material.''" The court finds that defendant "has attested that '[a]ll information withheld was exempt from disclosure pursuant to a FOIA exemption' and that '[a]fter EOUSA considered the segregability of the requested records, no reasonably segregable non-exempt information was withheld from plaintiff.'"