Skip to main content

Smith v. DOJ, No. 21-1291, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160679 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 6, 2024) (Merryday, J.)

Date

Smith v. DOJ, No. 21-1291, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160679 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 6, 2024) (Merryday, J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning third party

Disposition:  Adopting magistrate judge’s report and recommendation; granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment

  • Exemption 7(A):  The court relates that “[t]he report explains that the re-categorized documents withheld by DOJ are properly exempt under 5 U.S.C. § 552 (a)(7)(A) . . . .”  “[The magistrate judge] finds that ‘particular harms . . . may result from the disclosure of the information found in the withheld documents’ and that ‘the DOJ has met its burden that Exemption 7(A) applies.’”  “[Plaintiff] objects to the sufficiency of DOJ’s declaration and requests further evidence of DOJ’s ‘good faith.’”  “[The magistrate judge] conducted an in camera review of the 274 pages of withheld documents and finds the [withholding] warranted.”      “Because ‘[a] close examination of the documents and supporting affidavits submitted by [defendant] shows that his declarations are highly detailed, focus on the individual documents, and provide a factual base for withholding each document at issue,’ further declarations are unnecessary.”  “A de novo review of the challenged portions of the report and recommendation reveals no error.”
Court Decision Topic(s)
District Court opinions
Exemption 7(A)
Updated October 16, 2024