Woods v. Elec. Surveillance Unit, No. 14-01713, 2016 WL 706171 (D.D.C. Feb. 22, 2016) (Cooper, J.)

Woods v. Elec. Surveillance Unit, No. 14-01713, 2016 WL 706171 (D.D.C. Feb. 22, 2016) (Cooper, J.)

Re: Request for surveillance records

Disposition: Granting defendant's motion for summary judgment

• Exemption 3:  The court holds that "[d]efendant is entitled to summary judgment on the Exemption 3 claim."  The court relates that "[i]n accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 2517 and § 2518(8)(b), the government withheld the following categories of responsive records: (1) the prosecutors' requests for permission to apply for court authorization (including applications) supporting law-enforcement affidavits, and proposed orders; (2) the OEO's action memoranda to the AAG recommending approval of the requests, and (3) the AAG's memoranda to the OEO advising about the approval of the request, including a copy of the AG’s delegation of authority to the AAG."  The court finds that "[t]he declaration and Vaughn index submitted by DOJ provide detailed descriptions of the withheld records, and they sufficiently explain why the documents are exempt from disclosure under Exemption 3."  "The judges of this Court have consistently approved the government's withholding of the requested memoranda because their release would '"necessarily disclose[ ] information that must be protected under Title III[.]"'"
   
• Exemption 5, Attorney Work-Product:  The court holds that "[d]efendant is entitled to summary judgment on the Exemption 5 claim."  The court relates that defendant withheld "logging notes [which] record OEO's receipt of a prosecutor's request 'for permission to apply for a Title III order with respect to specified telephone numbers.'"  "They include the target's name, the name and address of the telephone subscriber, the name of the ESU reviewer, and the user name of the ESU employee who created the note."  The court explains that "[d]efendant's declarant avers that each document listed as Exemption 5 material was prepared by an attorney (or at the attorney’s direction) 'as part of the wiretap application process' and 'in anticipation of ... a criminal prosecution of the individuals allegedly involved in the criminal activity that was evidenced by the Court-ordered interceptions.'"  Specifically, the court finds that "[a]lthough the logging notes 'possess a partially administrative character,' the fact that they were compiled in anticipation of a specific criminal prosecution qualifies them as attorney work product."