Shapiro v. DOJ, No. 13-0729, 2017 WL 1411549 (D.D.C. Apr. 20, 2017) (Friedman, J.)

Shapiro v. DOJ, No. 13-0729, 2017 WL 1411549 (D.D.C. Apr. 20, 2017) (Friedman, J.)

Re: Request for records concerning deceased computer programmer, activist, and doctoral candidate at MIT

Disposition: Granting defendant's motion for summary judgment; denying plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment

• Exemption 7(E): "The Court . . . concludes that the government has adequately justified the withholding of the two reports in full, consisting of seven pages, under FOIA Exemption 7(E)." First, the court finds that "[t]he government has established, and [plaintiff] does not dispute, that the FBI is a law enforcement agency, and that the records were compiled for the law enforcement purpose of 'investigating a computer intrusion of the public access system of the federal courts of the United States.'" Second the court rejects defendant's first argument and finds that "[t]he D.C. Circuit does not agree [with defendant]." "It has noted that it 'has applied the "risk circumvention of the law" requirement both to records containing guidelines and records containing technique and procedures.'" However, the court agrees with defendant's "withhold[ing of] seven full pages . . . containing 'comprehensive reports[.]'" Regarding, defendant's contentions that the information "'plays an essential role in decisions concerning the location and identity of suspects, factors essential for determinations to investigate fraud, uncover assets, and multiple other applicable law enforcement related uses[;]'" that "if this information were released, criminals would gain 'insight into the available tools and resources the FBI uses to conduct criminal investigations[;]'" and that "it would 'enable criminals to employ countermeasures to avoid detection, thus jeopardizing the FBI's investigative mission[,]'" the court finds that "[t]hese statements logically demonstrate how the release of the requested information might create a risk of circumvention of the law and meet the relatively low bar required in this Circuit." The court also rejects plaintiff's argument "that the government's release of the name of the database undermines – and is fatal to – its justification for withholding these seven documents" because "this does not diminish [defendant's] interest in withholding specific reports generated by that database."