Westmoreland v. FBI, No. 13-2058, 2015 WL 5063181 (D.D.C. Aug. 26, 2015) (Kollar-Kotelly, J.)

Westmoreland v. FBI, No. 13-2058, 2015 WL 5063181 (D.D.C. Aug. 26, 2015) (Kollar-Kotelly, J.)

Re: Request for records concerning plaintiff's criminal case

Disposition: Granting defendant's motion for summary judgment

• Procedural Requirements, Searching for Responsive Records:  The court holds that "[t]he FBI has demonstrated that it conducted a search reasonably calculated to locate records responsive to plaintiff's FOIA requests."  The court notes that defendant "search[ed] [its] [Central Records System] automated indices using variations of plaintiff's name as search terms" and "'reprocess[ed] [certain] records by applying a broader interpretation of plaintiff's request in order to achieve maximum disclosure[.]'"  The court relates that "[p]laintiff finds fault with the FBI's failure to produce the specific records of interest to him."  However the court finds that "[t]he adequacy of an agency's search is not determined by its results or the requester's level of satisfaction with its results."
   
• Exemption 3:  The court finds that defendant properly used Exemption 3.  The court notes that defendant used Exemption 3 in conjunction with "Rule 6(e)[, which] prohibits disclosure of 'matters occurring before [a] grand jury.'"  The court relates that "[t]he FBI's declarant explains that the agency withholds 'details concerning a Federal Grand Jury subpoena, including the name and identifying information of an individual subject to a Grand Jury subpoena and information that identifies specific records or evidence subpoenaed by the Federal Grand Jury[.]'" The court finds that "[i]t is clear that information of this nature falls within the scope of Exemption 3, and the FBI's determination is proper."
   
• Exemption 7, Threshold:  The court finds that "[i]t is apparent not only from the nature of the FOIA request but also from the type and content of the documents produced by the FBI that the responsive records were compiled for law enforcement purposes."  The court notes that "the declarant describes the FBI's law enforcement mission, . . . and explains that 'the records located in response to plaintiff's [FOIA] requests pertain to the investigations of [a] murder . . . and drug trafficking activities."
   
• Exemption 7(C):  The court holds that "[e]ven if plaintiff had not conceded [this] matter[], the Court finds that FBI adequately justified its determination[]."  The court notes that "[u]nder Exemption 7(C), the FBI withholds the names of and identifying information about '[FBI] Special Agents and support personnel . . . ,' . . .'third parties who are of investigative interest to the FBI and/or other law enforcement agencies,' . . . 'an individual who provided information to the FBI during the course of the investigation described in the responsive documents,' . . . 'third parties merely mentioned in the responsive documents,' . . . and 'city, local, and state law enforcement personnel[.]'"
   
• Exemption 7(D):  The court holds that "[e]ven if plaintiff had not conceded [this] matter[], the Court finds that FBI adequately justified its determination[]."  The court relates that "[u]nder Exemption 7(D), the FBI withholds the names of, identifying information about, and information provided by third parties to the FBI 'concerning the activities of the plaintiff and other individuals' illicit drug activities and [a] murder,' . . . in circumstances under which an assurance of confidentiality can be inferred."  "It also withholds the same types of information about confidential sources who regularly supplied information to the FBI and to whom the FBI expressly has assured confidentiality."
   
• Exemption 7(E):  "Plaintiff makes no mention of the FBI's reliance on Exemption 7(E), [and, therefore,] the Court also treats this matter as conceded."  The court relates that "the FBI withholds under Exemption 7(E) 'statistical information contained in effectiveness rating forms used by the FBI . . . ,' . . . and 'search results located through non-public databases used for official law enforcement purposes by the FBI and/or law enforcement personnel.'"
   
• Litigation Considerations "Reasonably Segregable" Requirement:  "Based on the FBI's supporting declaration, the Court concludes that the FBI adequately specif[i]ed 'which portions of the document[s] are disclosable and which are allegedly exempt.'"  The court relates that "[t]he FBI's declarant avers that 'each responsive page was individually examined to identify non-exempt information that could be reasonably segregated from exempt information,' and that '[a]ll segregable information has been released to plaintiff.'"