Rad v. USAO, No. 15-2415, 2017 WL 436260 (D.N.J. Jan. 31, 2017) (Thompson, J.)

Rad v. USAO, No. 15-2415, 2017 WL 436260 (D.N.J. Jan. 31, 2017) (Thompson, J.)

Re: Request for records concerning plaintiff's criminal case

Disposition: Granting defendant's motion for summary judgment; denying plaintiff's motion for in camera review
 

• Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search: "The Court is satisfied that the Government search was reasonably calculated to reveal all relevant documents." The court relates that "[it] previously determined that Plaintiff was not challenging the adequacy of the search, and that 'it appears that [the Government] search was reasonably calculated to reveal all relevant documents, thus fulfilling one of FOIA's requirements.'" "The parties do not present any new arguments on this issue, and Plaintiff again does not challenge the adequacy of the Government search."
   
• Exemption 3: "The Court finds that [certain] documents fall within FOIA Exemption 3, and that the relevant documents were properly withheld under Exemption 3." The court relates that, "[h]ere, EOUSA invoked Exemption 3 to withhold in full seven grand jury subpoenas and nine pages of E-gold and Skype records obtained through grand jury subpoenas." "These documents relate to a federal grand jury proceeding and are governed by Rule 6(e)." "The release of information contained in these documents has the potential to reveal substantive information about a grand jury investigation."
   
• Exemption 7(D): "The Court finds that the FBI properly withheld [certain] documents under Exemption 7(D)." The court relates that "[t]hese documents were compiled during the FBI's criminal investigation of Plaintiff, thus it is clear that they were withheld for law enforcement purposes." "Further, Defendant claims that the FBI withheld the documents to protect the names, identifying data, and/or information provided by a confidential source under an express assurance of confidentiality."
   
• Exemptions 6 & 7(C): "After balancing the relevant interests and considering all of the parties' arguments, the Court finds that Defendant properly withheld documents pursuant to both Exemptions 6 and 7(C)." The court relates that, "[i]n this case, the EOUSA and the FBI relied on Exemption 6 and 7(C) to withhold names, identifying information, and records relating to (1) third party E-gold users or accountholders; (2) government employees involved in Plaintiff's investigation and prosecution, including FBI Special Agents; (3) third parties who were mentioned in FBI records; and (4) third parties who provided information to the FBI." "[T]he Court is not persuaded that Plaintiff's unsubstantiated allegations of government misconduct constitute a sufficient public interest that would warrant disclosure here." "Nor is the Court persuaded that the release of the withheld information here, which could risk the privacy and safety of those named individuals, would advance any significant public interest." Finally, "the Court declines to require the relevant agencies to affirmatively demonstrate the life status of the individuals involved here."
   
• Exemption 7(E): "Considering the low burden that is required under Exemption 7(E), the Court finds that the FBI properly withheld information pursuant to Exemption 7(E)." The court finds that "[t]he FBI offered sufficient reasons for withholding the information." Specifically, the court relates that "the FBI invoked Exemption 7(E) to protect the name of an undercover operation referenced in the records at issue." "Defendant argues that the disclosure of the name of the undercover operation could provide insight in to the actual operation, which criminals could use to develop countermeasures to circumvent future operations." "The FBI also asserted Exemption 7(E) to protect an internal, non-public intranet web address specific to the FBI." "Finally, the FBI also asserted Exemption 7(E) to protect information as to whether an investigation is categorized as 'full' or 'preliminary,' as well as the date each investigation was initiated."
   
• Litigation Consideration, In Camera Inspection: The court holds that "[p]laintiff's motion to order production for in camera review will be denied." The Court declines to "require Defendant to produce all of the relevant documents requested by Plaintiff in his FOIA requests."