Picardi M.D., v. U.S. Att'y's Offs., Pierre, SD, No. 18-03014, 2021 WL 5961199 (D.S.D. Dec. 16, 2021) (Lange, C.J.)

Picardi M.D., v. U.S. Att'y's Offs., Pierre, SD, No. 18-03014, 2021 WL 5961199 (D.S.D. Dec. 16, 2021) (Lange, C.J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning plaintiff

Disposition:  Granting defendants' motion for summary judgment; denying plaintiff's motion to compel

• Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search:  The court relates that "[plaintiff] alleges that surveillance photos of his property that he acquired independently of the EOUSA disclosure prove 'bad faith' on the part of the Defendants."  The court finds that, "[h]ere, the agency has demonstrated they conducted a reasonable search."  "As outlined in the declarations by the Defendants, the FOIA inquiry was extensive."  "[Defendants] and others from the USAO and the EOUSA met with [plaintiff] to optimize his FOIA request."  "[Plaintiff] provided several search terms which were subsequently utilized."  "Based on these declarations that detail the USAO and the EOUSA's extensive efforts to locate and produce information related to [plaintiff's] FOIA requests, [the] Court finds their search reasonable."
   
• Litigation Considerations, Vaughn Index/Declaration:  The court finds that "Defendants' Vaughn index is detailed and substantial as it identifies the basis for each withholding and whether the redactions have been applied whole or in part."  "It also categorizes the information that has been withheld, and where applicable, notates the document's author, recipient, and date of creation."
   
• Exemption 3:  The court relates that defendants rely on "Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(2)(B) [which] prohibits the disclosure of grand jury material by government employees including court reporters and government attorneys."  "[The] Court does not see good reason in this FOIA case to disclose grand jury material leading to [plaintiff's] indictment or the 2005 grand jury transcript in which [plaintiff] testified as a witness."  "Certainly, divulging the material [sought] . . . would identify matters 'secret' before the grand jury, such as witnesses, the substance of the testimony or strategy of the investigation."
   
• Exemptions 6 & 7(C):  The court relates that "[defendant's] declaration attests that 'the information sought to be protected are the names, personal schedules, telephone numbers and other personally identifiable information [of] private individuals, other than Plaintiff, who are in some way connected with the investigation into Plaintiff.'"  "The declaration states that the EOUSA withheld information to uphold the privacy interests of individuals or private entities named that may have been involved in, or victims of, crimes related to [plaintiff's] prosecution."  "[The] Court agrees with the Defendants that 'disclosure of [personal identifying information] could subject individuals to an unwarranted invasion of their personal privacy by leading to efforts to contact them directly or subject them to harassment or harm' and 'might lead to retaliation against those individuals.'"