Pendell v. U.S. Secret Serv., No. 18-0352, 2019 WL 6840125 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2019) (Suddaby, C.D.J.)

Pendell v. U.S. Secret Serv., No. 18-0352, 2019 WL 6840125 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2019) (Suddaby, C.D.J.)

Re:  Request for certain records concerning plaintiff's criminal case

Disposition:  Granting defendant's motion for summary judgment

• Litigation Considerations, Relief:  The court holds that "although failure to comply with the FOIA time limits results in a requestor's ability to immediately seek relief on the requestor's underlying FOIA claim (i.e., the unwarranted withholding of requested records) without first exhausting the administrative remedies provided by FOIA, FOIA does not create a separate legal right to recover damages or any other form of relief solely based on the fact that the agency in question failed to comply with those time limits."  "Additionally, it is undisputed that, even if Defendant's responses to either the FOIA request or the administrative appeal were beyond the allowed time limit, Defendant has since responded to both Plaintiff's FOIA request and his administrative appeal, rendering his claims of untimeliness moot."
   
• Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search:  The court holds that "[defendant's] declaration meets Defendant's burden to show that the search was sufficiently thorough and reasonably calculated to uncover the requested documents."  The court specifically notes that defendant searched "the most likely place to find responsive materials."  Additionally, responding to plaintiff's argument, the court finds that "the fact that not all the requested evidence was found does not render a search inadequate."
   
• Exemption 7(A) & Litigation Considerations, Mootness and Other Grounds for Dismissal:  "The Court finds that the question of whether [Exemption 7(A)] was properly applied is moot because Defendant eventually produced all of the documents that it had initially withheld while Plaintiff's criminal appeal was pending."
   
• Exemptions 6 & 7(C):  "[T]he Court concludes that Defendant has met its burden to show that disclosure of this information was clearly unwarranted and that the privacy interests of the private and law enforcement individuals outweigh the minimal-to-non-existent public interest under Exemption 6 and Exemption 7(C)."  The court finds that "[b]ased on both [defendant's] declaration and the evidence, Defendant has established that the redactions made pursuant to these exemptions involve a more than de minimis privacy interest."  "In particular, release of the redacted information would reveal to the public names and addresses of the minor victim and her family, names, identification numbers and addresses of law enforcement officers, and highly personal private information about the minor victim, all of which would directly impact the privacy rights of those individuals."  The court also finds that "[i]t makes no difference to the existence of a privacy interest that Plaintiff is already aware of the identity of some of the involved individuals . . . ."  Finally, the court finds that defendant "has not alleged any way in which disclosure of this specific information would shed light on Defendant's conduct, administration of investigations, or performance of its official duties."
   
• Exemption 7(E):  "The Court also concludes that Defendant has shown entitlement to the exemption to protect law enforcement investigation techniques and procedures."  "In particular, [defendant's] assertion that disclosure of the techniques and methods by which Defendant is able to extract information from electronic devices would, if made public, allow individuals to devise ways to circumvent that technology and procedures that would undermine the efficacy of criminal investigations is both logical and plausible."  The court finds that "[defendant's] declaration and the unredacted records are more than sufficient to establish that the redacted portions of the FOIA response were related to techniques or procedures of forensic analysis used to extract data from the relevant electronic devices that are not generally known to the public as required for this exemption."