Patel v. BOP, No. 09-200, 2015 WL 4999906 (D.D.C. Aug. 21, 2015) (Moss, J.)

Patel v. BOP, No. 09-200, 2015 WL 4999906 (D.D.C. Aug. 21, 2015) (Moss, J.)

Re: Request for a DOJ OIG report and records concerning plaintiff

Disposition: Granting in part and denying in part defendant's motion for summary judgment

• Procedural Requirements, Consultations and Referrals:  In response to plaintiff's argument concerning the adequacy of the search, the court holds that "the agency's responsibility was limited to reviewing and releasing the documents that were referred to it [by OIG]."  "BOP had no obligation to search for or to provide additional information in response to Plaintiff's 2004 FOIA request to OIG."
   
• Procedural Requirements, Searching for Responsive Records:  As to those requests sent directly to BOP, the court finds that "[a]lthough BOP's declaration states that Plaintiff received documents in response to Plaintiff's 2005 requests, it contains no information whatsoever about what record systems the agency searched, what search criteria it used, or whether the agency reviewed the potentially responsive documents Plaintiff cites."  "Although it may be the case that BOP has, in fact, produced all documents in its possession that are responsive to Plaintiff's 2005 requests, BOP has not carried its burden on summary judgment to prove that it has done so."
   
• Litigation Considerations, Vaughn Index/Declaration:  The court holds that although "[s]ome of [the] uncertainty is attributable to a lack of specificity in Plaintiff's Complaint," "[t]he Court concludes . . . that, reasonably construed, the Complaint does place [plaintiff's] February 15, 2005 FOIA request at issue in this litigation."  "Accordingly, BOP must provide Plaintiff a Vaughn index as to those three pages before it can obtain summary judgment in its favor."

Additionally, regarding defendant's use of Exemptions 6 and 7(C), the court finds that "BOP has not provided a sufficiently detailed explanation of the privacy interests that it contends would be compromised by disclosure of the witness statements."  "To prevail on summary judgment, therefore, BOP needs to provide some evidence that the subject matter of the redacted statements itself is sufficient to identify particular individuals who have a privacy interest in remaining anonymous."  "BOP has not met that burden at this juncture."

Moreover, regarding defendant's use of Exemption 5, the court finds that "BOP has provided no information regarding the 'role played by the' redacted discussions in the process of determining whether to hold inmates in protective custody—or, indeed, any information relating to the nature of the 'deliberation' at issue."  "Without further detail, the Court is not in a position to determine whether exemption (b)(5) is applicable."

However, regarding defendant's action on plaintiff's request for production of documents related to a protective hearing, "[a]lthough compiling a traditional Vaughn index would perhaps have allowed less cumbersome review of the redactions, the system employed by BOP in this case satisfied the functional requirements of Vaughn and its progeny."  The court explains "that BOP's Vaughn index was adequate for present purposes" because it "allow[s] the Court to 'conduct a meaningful de novo review of [BOP's] claim of an exemption.'"

• Litigation Considerations, "Reasonably Segregable" Requirements:  The court holds that "BOP has not made [an adequate] showing that the documents at issue contain exclusively exempt information."  The court explains that "BOP's declaration states that '[e]very effort has been made to provide plaintiff with all reasonably segregable portions of the records requested;' that '[n]o reasonably segregable non-exempt portions of these records have been withheld from Plaintiff;' and that 'no further information can be segregated without releasing information properly withheld' under various exemptions."  "BOP does not explain, however, why any of the withheld documents whose segregability Plaintiff contests cannot be further segregated."