Williams v. EOUSA, No. 18-0019, 2019 WL 1359349 (D.D.C. Mar. 25, 2019) (Friedrich, J.)

Williams v. EOUSA, No. 18-0019, 2019 WL 1359349 (D.D.C. Mar. 25, 2019) (Friedrich, J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning plaintiff's and plaintiff's mother's criminal case

Disposition:  Granting in part and denying in part defendant's motion for summary judgment; denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as moot; denying plaintiff's motion to show cause

• Litigation Considerations, Mootness and Other Grounds for Dismissal:  "[T]he Court denies as moot [plaintiff's] initial motion for summary judgment."  "EOUSA had not responded to [plaintiff's] FOIA request when he filed the motion, and the motion took issue with the agency's failure to disclose any documents at all . . . ."  "Those arguments no longer apply now that EOUSA has responded to his request."
   
• Litigation Considerations, Vaughn Index/Declaration:  The court relates that "[a]lthough the FOIA contact confirmed that '233 pages of trial exhibits' were retrieved following the 'original search of [plaintiff's] criminal case file,' . . . EOUSA neither accounted for those exhibits in its opening brief nor addressed [plaintiff's] argument in a reply brief."  "Because the Court lacks sufficient information to determine whether the undisclosed exhibits constitute a withholding, much less an improper withholding, it denies EOUSA's motion without prejudice as to those documents."  "EOUSA must supplement the record and, if warranted, release any additional responsive documents."
   
• Procedural Requirements:  Responding to plaintiff's demand, the court finds that "EOUSA is under no obligation to identify documents as Brady, Giglio, or Jencks Act material subject to disclosure during a criminal trial."  The court explains that "[plaintiff] may, as he did here, request 'all . . . reports, files, and documents that are permitted to be released by law related to [his] case.'"  "That request presumably includes any Brady, Giglio, or Jencks Act material the government may have, but it does not require EOUSA to identify the materials as such."
   
• Procedural Requirements:  The court holds that "[t]he government has not satisfied its burden to prove that a court order prohibits the disclosure of the sealed records."  The court explains that "'the mere existence of a court seal is, without more, insufficient to justify nondisclosure under the FOIA.'"  "'[T]he proper test for determining whether an agency improperly withholds records under seal is whether the seal, like an injunction, prohibits the agency from disclosing the records.'"
   
• Exemption 3:  The court holds that "EOUSA did not satisfy its burden."  "Its declaration 'is not detailed enough for the Court to determine whether disclosure of the . . . record[s] would reveal some secret aspect of the grand jury's investigation or whether the information was simply peripheral to the grand jury investigation.'"  "Although EOUSA has listed a few documents withheld under exemption 3 and Rule 6(e) in a Vaughn Index, . . . it has not suggested that these documents are representative of the more than 100 pages of documents it withheld."  "Nor has it argued that the documents it withheld include only the types of information identified in its declaration."
   
• Exemption 5, Attorney Work-Product:  The court holds that "EOUSA explained with specificity why it withheld several documents that were prepared by prosecutors 'in contemplation of' [plaintiff's] prosecution, . . . and Williams has not raised a specific objection to EOUSA's justifications."  The court finds that "EOUSA appropriately applied exemption 5."
   
• Exemption 7(C):  The court holds that "EOUSA withheld under exemption 7(C) the names and contact information of individuals 'whose identities were not already published on the docket, or in other publicly filed information.'"  "EOUSA concluded that the release of this information could subject the individuals, who have not consented to any disclosure, . . . to 'unwanted and even unlawful efforts to gain additional access to the[m] and/or personal information about them' and 'harassment, harm, or . . . unwanted and/or derogatory publicity and inferences arising from their connection to the case.'"  "It also determined that 'the dissemination of [the] information would not help to explain the activities of EOUSA or the government' and thus found no public interest to 'counterbalance the privacy rights in the [withheld] information.'"  "[Plaintiff] has not questioned this reasoning."  "Nor has he satisfied his burden to show that a significant public interest outweighs these individuals' privacy interests."
   
• Litigation Considerations, "Reasonably Segregable" Requirements:  The court holds that "EOUSA has not shown that the remaining documents withheld in full under exemptions 6 and 7(C) cannot be partially disclosed."  "It is not clear whether the exempt information in these documents is 'inextricably intertwined' with the nonexempt information and thus whether redactions are appropriate."