Sarras v. DOJ, No. 19-0861, 2024 WL 4227717 (D.D.C. Sept. 18, 2024) (Cooper, J.)
Date
Sarras v. DOJ, No. 19-0861, 2024 WL 4227717 (D.D.C. Sept. 18, 2024) (Cooper, J.)
Re: Requests for records concerning plaintiff
Disposition: Granting in part defendant’s motion for summary judgment; denying in part plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment
- Litigation Considerations, Vaughn Index/Declaration: The court relates that “[a]s a threshold matter, [plaintiff] claims that DOJ’s latest Vaughn index is inadequate because it fails to account for the pages that DOJ deemed nonresponsive.” “But [the court finds that] a Vaughn index is only a means for the government to explain why a responsive record falls under one of FOIA’s exemptions; the government does not have to explain in it why it deemed records nonresponsive.” “To the extent that [plaintiff] is challenging the adequacy of DOJ’s search for responsive records, the Court has already granted DOJ summary judgment on that issue as to both of his requests.”
- Exemption 6: The court relates that “DOJ’s Vaughn index indicates that DOJ applied Exemption 6 to withhold three types of information: (1) names of other FOIA requesters; (2) names of third parties; and (3) email addresses of government employees.” “The Court finds that, for the most part, these withholdings are proper.” “To begin, as [the] Court has explained previously, names are covered by Exemption 6.” “The same goes for email addresses.” “The Court finds that the balance of public and privacy interests supports DOJ’s withholding of these names and email addresses.” “Courts have long recognized that individuals have more than minimal privacy interests in their names and other identifying information.” “That includes government employees’ email addresses, as disclosing them could lead to harassment.” “On the other side of the balance, [plaintiff] identifies no public interest in disclosing the withheld information.” “Nor would disclosing the names of third parties and other FOIA requesters or the email addresses of lower-level government employees promote the public's interest in learning what the government is doing.” “As such, the balance of public and private interests tips against disclosure.” “Disclosing these names and email addresses would also foreseeably cause harm.” “‘[T]he release[ ] of the Federal government employees’ names and contact information would result in harassment, impacting their ability to effectively complete their day-to-day duties.’”
However, “the Court finds that it once again must reserve judgment on an issue.” “[Plaintiff] contests DOJ’s redactions on pages 14 and 15 of the December 2021 production, which both Sarras and DOJ describe as an email exchange between government employees.” “[Plaintiff] claims, and DOJ does not dispute, that the emails’ recipients’ names are missing from those pages.” “[Plaintiff] argues that the names have been improperly redacted.” “[T]he Court would be inclined to grant DOJ summary judgment on this issue.” “But DOJ disclosed the names of the employees on this particular email exchange in its publicly filed Vaughn index.” “By disclosing the employees’ names in two public filings, DOJ has waived its right to withhold these names from the challenged email records.” “The Court does not know whether [three specific] names appear on the unredacted version of the emails.” “DOJ acknowledges in its Vaughn Index that it redacted staff email addresses from those pages, but it does not specify whether it redacted any names.” “That omission suggests that DOJ did not redact names, and DOJ is entitled to a presumption of good faith.” “On the other hand, DOJ’s reply brief does not meaningfully respond to [plaintiff’s] assertion that DOJ redacted names from those pages.” “In light of the above, the Court finds that it must reserve ruling on the parties’ motions as to pages 14 and 15 of the December 2021 production.” “[O]n this record, the Court does not know whether DOJ redacted [the three specific] names from the email at pages 14 and 15.” “The Court therefore instructs counsel for DOJ to file, within seven days of this opinion’s issuance, a notice indicating whether DOJ redacted the names of [the three names] from those pages.” “If it did so, then the Court will grant summary judgment to [plaintiff] and deny summary judgment to DOJ on this issue.” “If it did not, then the Court will do the reverse.”
Similarly, “[t]he Court holds that DOJ properly redacted attorneys’ names for the same reasons that it found DOJ properly withheld personal identifying information from the December 2021 production.” “The attorneys named in the April 2022 production have privacy interests in their names and there is no public interest that supports disclosure.” “Disclosure would also foreseeably cause harm, as disclosing the attorneys’ names would expose them to unwarranted harassment.” “[Plaintiff’s] allegations of attorney misconduct do not move the needle.” “[Plaintiff] argues that DOJ’s redactions of attorney names are improper because he needs those names to pursue disciplinary proceedings against those attorneys before their state bar associations.” “Requesters may obtain private information under FOIA such as individuals’ names if they ‘produce evidence that would warrant a belief by a reasonable person that [an] alleged Government impropriety might have occurred.’” “But [plaintiff] has not produced any evidence of misconduct, and therefore has not met ‘the demanding Favish standard.’”
- Procedural Requirements: “The Court . . . grants DOJ summary judgment as to the February 2022 production” where the only issue is duplicate pages. “The Court finds that DOJ has adequately identified the duplicate pages.”
- Exemption 7(E): “[T]he Court . . . holds that DOJ properly withheld dates from the April 2022 production at the FBI’s request under Exemption 7(E).” The court finds that “[t]he FBI has met its burden here.” The court explains that “[it] has redacted this portion of the opinion because it is based on a sealed, ex parte declaration filed by DOJ.”
- Exemption 7, Threshold; Exemption 6; Exemption 7(C); Exemption 7(D): “[T]he Court holds that DOJ properly withheld the third-party law enforcement record in full.” “DOJ explains that the document contains ‘the name and other identifying information of a third-party individual who provided information to the FBI during an FBI investigation.’” “As a threshold matter, the Court holds that the withheld record was compiled for law-enforcement purposes.” “Exemptions 7(C) and 7(D) both apply only to ‘records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes[.]’” “A record is so compiled if it ‘relate[s] to anything that can fairly be characterized as an enforcement proceeding[.]’” “Because the record at issue is a report made during and regarding an FBI investigation, it clearly relates to an enforcement proceeding.”
Regarding Exemptions 6 and 7(C), “[t]he Court finds DOJ properly redacted the name and identifying information of the third party.” “The Court sees no reason to deviate from [the] general rule in this case.” “The third party named in this record provided information against suspected criminals who may retaliate against the individual if they learn of the individual’s cooperation.” “On the other hand, revealing an informant’s personal identifying information would not further the public's understanding of the FBI’s activities.” “Disclosure would therefore be a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”
Regarding Exemption 7(D), the court relates that “DOJ asserts that disclosing what the informant told the FBI could reasonably be expected to disclose the source’s identity.” “The Court agrees.” “As DOJ explained, disclosing the information provided by the third party could reasonably be expected to reveal the third party’s identity.” “The third party provided ‘specific, detailed information that is singular in nature’ and that ‘only a few individuals would be privy to[.]’” “The third party obtained this information through his or her ‘proximity . . . to the investigative subjects and the events described[.]’” “As a result, it appears that individuals under investigation by the FBI could deduce the third party’s identity should the third party’s information be disclosed.” “DOJ has also demonstrated that the informant provided the information on a confidential basis.” “Here, DOJ does not assert that it provided any express assurances to the third-party informant.” “But it has demonstrated that the third party provided information under circumstances that reasonably imply such an assurance.” “The informant provided information regarding ‘violent suspected criminals’ who had ‘already displayed and were believed by the source to have a propensity toward violence[.]’” “And, as previously mentioned, the informant was in ‘proximity . . . to the investigative subjects and the events described[.]’” “Accordingly, the source had reason to fear violent reprisal and likely cooperated with the FBI only because the source believed that the information and the source’s identity would be kept confidential.”
- Litigation Considerations, Evidentiary Showing, “Reasonably Segregable” Showing: “[T]he Court concludes that DOJ met its obligation of producing all reasonably segregable information.” “‘Agencies are entitled to a presumption that they complied with the obligation to disclose reasonably segregable material,’ which must be overcome by some ‘quantum of evidence’ by the requester.” “Here, DOJ explains that it reviewed each page in the production ‘line-by-line’ and released ‘all non-exempt information.’” “For documents withheld in full, DOJ continues that ‘either there was no reasonably segregable information, any non-exempt information amounted to essentially meaningless words or phrases, or the information fell within information protected by another exemption[.]’” “The FBI similarly made ‘[e]very effort . . . to provide Plaintiff . . . with all reasonably segregable, non-exempt information.’” “[Plaintiff], on the other hand, has produced no evidence to rebut the presumption that the government produced all reasonably segregable information.”
Court Decision Topic(s)
District Court opinions
Exemption 6
Exemption 7
Exemption 7(C)
Exemption 7(D)
Exemption 7(E)
Litigation Considerations, Vaughn Index/Declarations
Litigation Considerations, “Reasonably Segregable” Requirements
Procedural Requirements, Supplemental to Main Categories
Updated October 28, 2024