Sandoval v. DOJ, No. 16-1013, 2017 WL 5075821 (D.D.C. Nov. 2, 2017) (Jackson, J.)

Sandoval v. DOJ, No. 16-1013, 2017 WL 5075821 (D.D.C. Nov. 2, 2017) (Jackson, J.)

Re:  Requests for records concerning plaintiff

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

• Litigation Considerations, Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies:  "Defendants argue that plaintiff has not exhausted his administrative appeal remedies since BOP responded to plaintiff's request in a timely fashion, it informed him of his appeal rights, and plaintiff did not file an appeal after he received BOP's FOIA determination."  "Because plaintiff does not challenge this contention either, the Court will grant defendants' motion as conceded."
   
• Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search:  "Because the EOUSA . . . declarations lack the necessary specificity and clarity, the Court finds that summary judgment is inappropriate at this time."  The court finds that "the declarations should make it clear if [the] three [requests at issue] were consolidated under a single request number, or if requests one and two were considered to have been superseded by the slightly broader third request."  Additionally, the court finds that the declarant "fails to explain why [the locations searched] were the locations searched[,]" "does not identify who [the] employees [who conducted the search] were and what their responsibilities are, nor does it aver that no other custodians were likely to possess responsive documents, or describe the types of records searched or the search methodology used by the employees," and "does not list the search terms used[.]"
   
• Exemptions 6 & 7(C):  The court holds that "the FBI has justified its invocation of Exemption 7(C), and the Court will grant defendants' motion for summary judgment on the Exemption 6 and Exemption 7(C) withholdings."  The court relates that the FBI "withheld the name and identifying information of . . . '(1) FBI Special Agents and support personnel; (2) third parties of investigative interest; (3) a third party victim; (4) third parties who provided information to the FBI; (5) third parties merely mentioned; (6) local law enforcement personnel; and (7) a non-FBI federal government employee.'"  "The Court notes that in his complaint, plaintiff seems to contend that the public has an interest in knowing whether the government prosecuted him and obtained his conviction without disclosing all relevant material to plaintiff."  "Even if the Court considered this conclusory argument contained within plaintiff's complaint, the Court finds that the disclosure of identifying information would not improve the public's understanding of how the government operates."
   
• Exemption 7(D):  "The Court is satisfied that the FBI has carried its burden in establishing that the sources spoke with the understanding that the communication would remain confidential."  The court relates that, "[h]ere, the FBI asserted Exemption 7(D) to protect the names, identifying information, and information provided by third party sources to the FBI under an implied assurance of confidentiality."  The court also relates that "[t]he FBI's declarant averred that the 'individuals provided valuable, detailed information concerning activities of subjects who were of investigative interest to the FBI,' that the information they provided was 'unique to the individuals due to their proximity to the criminal elements,' and that as a result, 'confidentiality can be inferred.'"  "Further, he stated that the FBI received information from a local law enforcement agency and that '[i]nherent in this cooperative effort is a mutual understanding that the identities of the local law enforcement agency's sources and the information provided will be held in confidence by the FBI, and not released pursuant to FOIA and Privacy Act requests.'"
   
• Exemption 7(F):  "Deferring to the agency's prediction of harm that could occur to individuals who provided the FBI with information, the Court concludes that the FBI has justified its unopposed invocation of Exemption 7(F)."  "Because the individuals provided information to the FBI concerning the violent criminal activities of plaintiff and his associates, the release of their personal information could make these individuals targets for retaliation by violent criminals."
   
• Litigation Considerations, "Reasonably Segregable" Requirements:  "Upon review of the FBI's supporting declaration, including the detailed coding system that the FBI used to guarantee, to the best of its ability, that the only information withheld is exempt or 'so intertwined with protected material that segregation is not possible without revealing the underlying protected material,' . . . the Court concludes that the FBI has met its segregability obligation."