Wiggins v. DOJ, No. 20-3565, 2025 WL 885097 (D.D.C. Mar. 21, 2025) (Reyes, J.)

Wiggins v. DOJ, No. 20-3565, 2025 WL 885097 (D.D.C. Mar. 21, 2025) (Reyes, J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning plaintiff’s prosecution

Disposition:  Granting in part and denying in part defendant’s motion for summary judgment

• Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search:  “Based on the declaration EOUSA has submitted, the Court finds that its search was ‘reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents.’” “EOUSA correctly identified the Eastern District ‘as the holder of the records.’”  “Using the terms ‘[plaintiff’s full name]’ and ‘[the] applicable . . . Criminal Case Number . . . ,’ Eastern District staff searched CaseView, the electronic case identifier system used by U.S. Attorney offices nationwide, ‘to identify and confirm the case number’ and the Assistant U.S. Attorney assigned to the case.”  “Due to the age of the case, the records were retrieved from the Federal Records Center.”  “The Eastern District also conducted ‘an email search’ by sending inquiries to ‘all staff members,’ including ‘IT support, support staff, and the AUSAs in the EDNC for electronic and paper file records.’”  “Those searches located thousands of potentially responsive records ‘fit[ting] the search terms’ that the staff then sent to EOUSA for processing.”
  
  “Without evidence to counter EOUSA’s demonstrably adequate search, Plaintiff’s assertion of missing records is not enough.”  “Because he offers no such evidence, EOUSA is entitled to judgment on the search for responsive records.”
   
• Exemption 5, Deliberative Process Privilege:  The court relates that “EOUSA invokes the deliberative process privilege.”  “EOUSA describes the withheld documents as follows:  eighty-three pages of undated and unsigned proposed amended jury instructions ‘generated by the AUSAs’ and containing ‘attorney notes,’ . . . ; an unsigned and undated ten-page draft document titled ‘USAO Response – Introduction and Instruction,’ . . . ; an unsigned and partially dated eleven-page document titled ‘Appellant Brief . . . generated by the AUSAs and Agency employment staff’ and ‘containing markings,’ . . . ; and three pages of emails vaguely described as having ‘named the plaintiff’ and ‘referenced attorney communication and information between the EDNC employment staff and AUSAs regarding the prosecution of plaintiff and the co-defendant’s criminal cases[]’ . . . .”  “EOUSA relies solely on the deliberative process privilege without establishing the deliberative nature of each document or category of documents withheld and how ‘disclosure “would” – not “could” – adversely impair internal deliberations[.]’”  “EOUSA’s cryptic descriptions do not establish ‘the type of back-and-forth exchange of ideas, constructive feedback, and internal debate . . . that sits at the heart of the deliberative process privilege.’”  “Nor do the generic assertions of harm to internal discussions . . . parroted throughout the Vaughn index ‘suffice to carry the Government’s burden of proof in defending FOIA cases.’”  “Thus, summary judgment on the Exemption 5 withholdings is not warranted.”
   
• Exemption 7(C):  The court holds that “EOUSA properly redacted the names and other identifying information of third-party individuals, including Eastern District employees, third-party witnesses, and co-defendants of the criminal case, and plausibly explains the foreseeable harm in disclosing such information.”  “But neither the declaration nor the Vaughn index adequately describes the 687 pages withheld in full, and Exemption 7(C) ‘ordinarily permits the Government to withhold only the specific information to which it applies, not the entire page or document in which the information appears.’”  “Thus, summary judgment on the Exemption 7(C) withholdings is not yet warranted.”
   
• Procedural Requirements:  The court finds that “EOUSA has not properly justified withholding fifty-one sealed pages.” “In this circuit, the ‘test for determining whether an agency has improperly withheld records placed under seal by a court is “whether the seal, like an injunction, prohibits the agency from disclosing the records.”’”  “It requires courts in FOIA cases ‘to examine (1) any explicit sealing order . . . , if there is one; (2) extrinsic evidence about the intended scope of a purported sealing order; (3) orders of the same court in similar circumstances; [or] (4) the issuing court’s general rules or procedures.’”  “EOUSA has offered no evidence to warrant summary judgment on the withheld sealed records.”