Young v. DOJ, No. 21-739, 2022 WL 17668806 (D.D.C. Dec. 14, 2022) (Friedrich, J.)

Young v. DOJ, No. 21-739, 2022 WL 17668806 (D.D.C. Dec. 14, 2022) (Friedrich, J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning confidential human source (“CHS”) referred to as “‘Mo,’” who testified against plaintiff at his criminal trial.

Disposition:  Granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment

• Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search:  “The Court first concludes that the FBI’s search for all records [containing plaintiff’s name] related to ‘Mo’ in [plaintiff’s] file was reasonably calculated to turn up records responsive to [plaintiff’s] request . . . .”  “Here, the FBI submitted a declaration . . . that describes its search in reasonable detail because it includes the search terms and parameters used and provides reasoning for them.”  “The affidavit here explains in detail the method of its search of the FBI’s Central Records System, as well as [plaintiff’s name] and search refinement (records regarding ‘Mo’) relied on.”  “[Plaintiff’s] arguments to the contrary are unpersuasive.”  “First, the fact that the FBI purportedly used unduly broad search terms is not an indication of an inadequate search.”  The court reasons that “broad, overinclusive search terms would not limit the responsive records produced by the agency; indeed, they would only generate more of them.”  “Second, the Court is unconvinced that the FBI unduly narrowed its search to [plaintiff’s] investigative file.”  “The FBI’s determination that any documents referencing the recordings between [plaintiff] and ‘Mo’ would most likely be found in [plaintiff’s] file and would be found by a search for ‘Mo’ is sensible because the information requested relates to [plaintiff’s] criminal prosecution.”  “Third, that the search yielded no records responsive to [certain portions of the request] also does not diminish the adequacy of the search.”  “Adequacy is not determined by the ‘fruits of the search.’”
   
• Exemption 7(D) & Waiver and Discretionary Disclosure:  “The Court . . . concludes that the FBI was justified in withholding records found in its search under Exemption 7(D) because, as [plaintiff] concedes, . . . ‘Mo’ was a confidential source providing information with the understanding of complete confidentiality.”  The court relates that “[plaintiff] contends that the records he requests would not disclose the identity of ‘Mo,’ but the agency with access to the documents is in the best position to make that determination.”
  
  The court holds that “the fact that ‘Mo’ publicly testified at trial does not change the analysis.”  “FOIA Exemption 7(D) allows the government to withhold confidential sources’ identities and the information they provided even after those sources testify in court.”  “In his opposition, [plaintiff] cursorily suggests that ‘Mo’ ‘testified to the existence of the very information sought by [plaintiff’s] FOIA request,” . . . but there is no basis for concluding that any particular record contains ‘the “exact information” to which the source actually testified.’”
   
• ​​​​​​​Litigation Considerations, “Reasonably Segregable” Requirements:  The court holds that “[defendant’s] Declaration reasonably details that segregated disclosure would either ‘result in the release of meaningless, disjointed words or phrases’ or otherwise ‘indicate the extent to which CHS “Mo” cooperated with or provided information to the FBI.’”