Petrucelli v. DOJ, No. 18-0729, 2020 WL 1323136 (D.D.C. Mar. 20, 2020) (Kollar-Kotelly, J.)

Petrucelli v. DOJ, No. 18-0729, 2020 WL 1323136 (D.D.C. Mar. 20, 2020) (Kollar-Kotelly, J.)

Re:  Requests for various records concerning plaintiff

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

• Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search:  "[T]he Court will grant summary judgment to defendant on the adequacy of BOP's search for responsive records."  The court relates that "[i]n response to plaintiff's request about records pertaining to himself, BOP followed the practice of construing it 'as a request for [Plaintiff’s] Central File, including the FOIA-exempt Privacy Folder,' since 'the Central File is the comprehensive record that is most likely to render responsive documents.'"  "The Court agrees that BOP 'conducted an adequate search once [plaintiff's] entire Central File was gathered for processing.'"  "As for plaintiff's requests for records concerning matters that he suggested had occurred before his arrival at FCI Allenwood but were not located in his Central File, the declarant followed up with requests for additional searches by staff at local offices that the FOIA requests suggested may have responsive records."  As to the adequacy of EOUSA's search, the court finds that "EOUSA's declaration provides sparse information about its search."  Specifically, the court finds that "EOUSA's declaration says nothing about the office's filing systems, the search terms that were used, and the type of search that was performed."  "Therefore, summary judgment on the adequacy of EOUSA's search is denied without prejudice."
   
• Exemptions 6, 7(C) & 7(F):  The court holds that "Plaintiff has produced no countervailing evidence to preclude summary judgment on BOP's asserted exemptions."  The court notes that "Plaintiff does not dispute that the requested information was compiled for law enforcement purposes, . . . and he does not dispute BOP's withholdings."  "The declarations show that BOP properly redacted the names of two FBI agents from one document under FOIA Exemption 6 . . . and third-party information under Exemption 7(C)."  The court finds that "disclosure of third-party information is disfavored, 'particularly . . . when the requester asserts a public interest – however it might be styled – in obtaining information that relates to a criminal prosecution.'"  "Although the Court need not address BOP's withholding of the same third-party information under exemption 7(F), . . . it finds the withholdings justified."