Ramdeo v. DOJ, No. 19-114, 2020 WL 1451602 (D.D.C. Mar. 25, 2020) (Jackson, J.)

Ramdeo v. DOJ, No. 19-114, 2020 WL 1451602 (D.D.C. Mar. 25, 2020) (Jackson, J.)

Re:  Request for variety of records from facility where plaintiff was incarcerated

Disposition:  Granting defendant's motion for summary judgment

• Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search:  The court holds that "defendant is entitled to summary judgment on the search question."  The court finds that "[t]he declarant has shown that he 'liberally construed the request, followed leads,' and 'searched all areas reasonably likely to produce responsive record,' eventually 'finding only duplicates or deadends.'"  "At that point, the declarant reasonably 'concluded that no areas remained to be searched that were likely to render responsive documents.'"  "Given that showing, the Court cannot find the search to be deficient for failure to identify the specific systems searched."
   
• Exemption 5, Attorney Work-Product:  The court relates that "BOP withheld as attorney work product documentation of 'investigations conducted in response to [plaintiff's] administrative tort claim filings, which were created for [a] Supervisory Attorney . . . .'"  "The investigations 'were prepared for a BOP attorney in anticipation of litigation,' and 'they informed the legal strategies of the DOJ attorneys who are litigating the pending claims on behalf of the Government.'"  "'The circuit's case law is clear that "[t]he work-product doctrine simply does not distinguish between factual and deliberative material."'"  "'[I]f a document is fully protected as work product, then segregability is not required.'"  "So, BOP's withholding of attorney work product records is justified, notwithstanding plaintiff's speculative allegations of misconduct."
   
• Exemption 7, Threshold:  The court finds that, "[b]ased on plaintiff's . . . clarifying letter, and the complaint allegations, defendant has reasonably interpreted plaintiff's request as seeking 'to obtain records from investigatory enforcement proceedings of staff he formally accused of misconduct.'"  "And BOP's declarant has dutifully differentiated the responsive records that reasonably satisfy the threshold law enforcement requirement . . . from those that do not."
   
• Exemptions 6 & 7(C):  The court holds that "the government is entitled to summary judgment."  The court relates that "defendant redacted the names of third-party inmates, 'line-level BOP staff and former staff,' and on one page the 'personally identifiable information' of 'a targeted staff member.'"  "The declarant explains that the release of such information 'would or could cast these individuals in an unfavorable or negative light, causing irreparable damage to reputations, embarrassment, harassment, threats of reprisal, comment, speculation, and stigma.'"  The court finds that "[t]he government has justified withholding third-party information."  As to evidence concerning alleged misconduct by high-level BOP officials, "the withheld names in this case do not include 'staff at the associate warden level and above' . . . "[s]o plaintiff’s 'evidence' is 'simply not very probative' of BOP's 'behavior or performance.'"  "Since, as the Supreme Court has instructed, '[a]llegations of government misconduct are easy to allege and hard to disprove, . . . courts must insist on a meaningful evidentiary showing' of a public interest."  "Otherwise, as the Court concludes here, the balancing test is simply not 'in[ ] play.'"
   
• Exemption 7(E):  The court holds that "summary judgment is granted as to the Exemption 7(E) withholdings."  The court relates that "BOP redacted notations that if disclosed could 'warn an inmate about whether he is under investigation, what level of scrutiny is being placed on his communications, and whether past calls were preserved.'"  "The declarant explains how such information could reasonably assist the inmate with circumventing the law by, inter alia, devising a plan to smuggle in contraband or to escape."
   
• Exemption 7(F):  The court holds that "summary judgment is granted on the Exemption 7(F) withholdings."  The court relates that "BOP applied this exemption 'in tandem with' Exemption 7(E) 'to protect staff, inmates and visitors.'"  "It also applied Exemption 7(F) to information redacted from an Administrative Detention Order that identifies the need for and the time and date of an inmate's admission to restricted housing, . . . and information redacted from SENTRY Inmate Profile reports, which provide 'a snapshot of almost all relevant information regarding an inmate' including 'housing assignments, religious preferences, medical restrictions, and release preparation' . . . ."  "BOP's declarant has explained 'in innumerable way[s], taking into account inmate ingenuity' how the release of the redacted information could place individuals in harm’s way."
   
• Litigation Considerations, "Reasonably Segregable" Requirements & In Camera Inspection:  "The Court has reviewed those submissions in camera and finds the withholdings . . . to be justified."  The court relates that "BOP's publicly filed declaration asserts that plaintiff has been provided 'all reasonably segregable nonexempt information' and that the withholdings were 'narrowly tailored to protect only the exempt material[.]'"  "The declarant also asserts correctly that the attorney work product materials 'are not amenable to segregability.'"  "The declarant explained that '[f]urther description' of the withheld information . . . could identify the actual exempt information the BOP has protected.'"  "Consequently, defendant was permitted to file under seal an ex parte declaration and Vaughn Index describing the documents that were withheld in full."