Usher v. DOJ, No. 23-2086, 2025 WL 2603615 (D.D.C. Sept. 9, 2025) (Cobb, J.)

Usher v. DOJ, No. 23-2086, 2025 WL 2603615 (D.D.C. Sept. 9, 2025) (Cobb, J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning plaintiff

Disposition:  Granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment

• Exemption 3:  The court relates that “[t]he Parties’ dispute centers on nine pages of notes that record a cooperating witness’s interview with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).”  “As part of that interview, the witness was shown certain documents that were grand jury exhibits and are labeled as such in the interview notes.”  “After its in-camera review of the relevant documents, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that publication of the redacted sections would not ‘tend to reveal some secret aspect of the grand jury’s investigation.’” “The redacted sections consist of notes documenting an interview occurring outside of grand jury proceedings, and do not reference grand jury transcripts or deliberations.”  “Instead, the notes analyze chatroom discussions related to trading activity that the witness participated in, and reference public market data on the foreign-exchange market.”  “Had the Government not invoked Exemption 3 so broadly and merely redacted the lines identifying certain documents shown to the cooperating witness in the interview as grand jury exhibits, Plaintiff and the public ‘would never have known that any of the documents had been subpoenaed by a grand jury.’”  “The Government has not shown that the release of these documents would ‘compromis[e] the secrecy of a grand jury’s deliberations,’ or ‘reveal the direction of the grand jury’s investigation.’”  “As such, the Government is required to disclose all sections of the notes to Plaintiff, except for the lines of text specifically identifying the documents in question as grand jury exhibits.”  “Of course, as the Circuit has acknowledged, ‘if the documents are now belatedly released, it might be apparent that they had been subpoenaed by a grand jury given that the potential connection with a grand jury is now known.’”  “That does not bar disclosure, however, because ‘the relevant question is whether the documents would have revealed the inner workings of the grand jury had they been released in response to the initial FOIA request.’”  “The Court concludes they would not.”