Taylor, II v. EOUSA, No. 18-2513, 2024 WL 4253160 (D.D.C. Sept. 20, 2024) (Berman Jackson, J.)

Taylor, II v. EOUSA, No. 18-2513, 2024 WL 4253160 (D.D.C. Sept. 20, 2024) (Berman Jackson, J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning plaintiff’s plea negotiations

Disposition:  Granting defendant’s renewed motion for summary judgment

• Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search:  The court relates that “[it] denied the defendant’s first motion for summary judgment because defendant had not accounted for more than 11,300 pages of potentially responsive records.”      “[T]he EOUSA Attorney-Advisor who for nearly two years conducted the monthly reviews, attests now that although the USAO-GAN ‘uploaded over 1569 emails with attachments totaling 11,335 pages’ only six pages were identified as responsive to plaintiff’s request.”      “With this clarification, the court turns to the merits of the case.”
  
  The court finds that “[defendant] describes in sufficient detail four searches the USAO-GAN conducted.” Defendant conducted “‘an email search of [the AUSA who handled plaintiff’s case’s] Microsoft Outlook account’ utilizing plaintiff’s name and criminal case number, the ‘case number for a SEC lawsuit against [plaintiff] in the Northern District of Georgia,’ and the number of this civil action located the thousands of pages discussed above, which between August 2020 and May 2022 [defendant] reviewed ‘on an interim monthly basis for responsiveness and processed the few [responsive] pages.’” Additionally, “[the AUSA] . . . reviewed the physical case file.”  The court finds that “[defendant] has described a search tailored to locate records responsive ‘to each specific item of the request,’ . . . which was reasonably interpreted as seeking ‘records of specific communications between plaintiff’s attorneys and the USAO-GAN, concerning [plaintiff’s] Criminal Case . . . .’”  “[T]hat office’s legal assistant and FOIA contact, confirms [the AUSA] as the most likely source for information since he (1) has ‘handled’ plaintiff’s criminal case ‘from inception,’ (2) maintains ‘physical custody of the paper records,’ (3) has ‘no additional records pertaining to this request,’ and (4) is the only attorney or staff member at USAO-GAN who has ‘records pertaining to this FOIA request.’”  “[A]lthough an agency ‘must revise its assessment of what is “reasonable” in a particular case to account for leads that emerge during its inquiry,’ . . . it ‘is not required to speculate about potential leads’ nor entertain a requester's speculation.”  “So, plaintiff's speculation that EOUSA failed to exhaust all possible leads does not raise a materially factual dispute to preclude a judgment in defendant's favor on the demonstrably adequate search.”
   
• Exemption 6; Exemption 7, Threshold; Exemption 7(C); Litigation Considerations, Evidentiary Showing, “Reasonably Segregable” Showing:  The court relates that “EOUSA withheld a minimal amount of information under FOIA exemptions 6 and 7(C).”  “Exemption 7(C)’s threshold of harm is lower than Exemption 6’s ‘clearly unwarranted’ requirement.”  “Since the responsive records ‘were generated in preparation for, or in response to, a law enforcement investigation conducted by the USAO,’ . . . the Court will address only Exemption 7(C).”  “Under Exemption 7(C), defendant redacted names, email addresses, and direct telephone numbers of agency employees from the nine released pages, except those of the AUSAs assigned to plaintiff’s criminal case.”  “In addition, defendant redacted the personally identifying information of law enforcement agents, non-departmental government attorneys, and third-party individuals who provided information in connection with the government’s investigation.”  “[Defendant] attests that ‘[b]ased on a line-by-line review, EOUSA has released all reasonably segregable, non-exempt information in the nine responsive pages,’ . . . and has adequately explained how releasing the redacted third-party information ‘could subject’ the affected ‘individuals to stigma, embarrassment, harm to their reputations or careers, and potential harassment or retaliation . . . .’”  “Similar explanations have been upheld as ‘sufficient.’”  “[Defendant] attests further that EOUSA weighed the privacy interest at stake against the public's interest and found ‘little if any cognizable public interest in disclosure of the information withheld because disclosure would shed little if any light on the operations or activities of the Government.’”  The court finds that “plaintiff has not explained how the redacted information would better inform the citizenry about governmental operations, and his ‘personal stake in the release of the requested information is irrelevant to the balancing of public and third-party privacy interests required by Exemption 7(C).’” “Absent an identifiable public interest, ‘the privacy interest . . . prevails because “something, even a modest privacy interest, outweighs nothing every time.”’”  “Plaintiff also asserts that ‘prominent media appearances by redacted agents negate any privacy interest[]’ . . . , but he has identified only [the AUSA] whose name and contact information have been released.”