Zaid v. DHS, No. 22-1602, 2025 WL 2592221 (D. Md. Sept. 8, 2025) (Chasanow, J.)

Zaid v. DHS, No. 22-1602, 2025 WL 2592221 (D. Md. Sept. 8, 2025) (Chasanow, J.)

Re: Request for records concerning plaintiff’s client

Disposition:  Granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment

• Exemption 7(A): The court relates that “[p]laintiff first argues that ICE’s Vaughn index falls short of the ‘functional categories’ necessary to claim exemption 7(A), because ICE has provided ‘types’ of documents but not ‘categories.’”  The court finds that “Plaintiff’s attempted distinction between ‘types’ and ‘categories’ is immaterial and overreads the phrase ‘functional categories.’”  “In its Vaughn index, ICE provided limited categories of documents, such as emails related to the same topic, and explained how the release of each could impact pending law enforcement investigations.”  “The supplemental declaration . . . explicitly considers more functional categories, breaking up the documents into ‘(1) Investigative Strategy and Operational Plans, (2) Surveillance and Monitoring Records, and (3) Investigative Techniques and Procedures.’”  “Each category is linked to the possible harm to future criminal investigations that could ensue from its disclosure.” “Defendant also asserted that the underlying investigation remained ongoing when the supplemental declaration was drafted.”  “The government has sufficiently described the materials withheld under exemption 7(A).” “Second, Plaintiff argues ICE has not met its burden to ‘demonstrate that disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings that are pending or reasonably anticipated.’”  “To the contrary, the materials from ICE clearly explain how the withheld materials are connected to ongoing criminal enforcement actions.”  “ICE elaborates on the impact of disclosure on law enforcement proceedings in two public declarations and a Vaughn index, as well as in a more detailed declaration and Vaughn index submitted for in camera review.”  “Together, these materials provide a clear sense of how release of the documents could harm future criminal proceedings.”  “Additionally, this court is cognizant of the special nature of child exploitation investigations and proceedings.”  “In this case, ICE has reasonably explained how providing additional information in response to Plaintiff’s requests could endanger pending and future investigations of child pornography offenses.”
   
• Exemption 6; Exemption 7(C):  The court relates that “[t]he parties seem to be talking past each other with respect to the information withheld pursuant to these exemptions.”  “Plaintiff challenges the invocation of exemptions 6 and 7(C) for withholding materials ‘in full.’”  “Defendant, meanwhile, asserts that the information withheld pursuant to exemptions 6 and 7(C) was only ‘names and other identifying information of several categories of individuals, including ICE employees and third-parties.’” “Plaintiff’s challenge that Defendant is withholding entire documents based on exemptions 6 and 7(C) does not match the Defendant’s actual representations.”  “Regardless, [the court finds that] Defendant has demonstrated that the privacy interests of the individuals outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure of the relevant personal information.”  “According to the supplemental declaration . . . , disclosing the identities of the individuals in these documents[:]  ‘[P]ose[s] substantial risks given the highly sensitive nature of this investigation and the broader law enforcement efforts to prevent child exploitation and child pornography.’”  “‘Criminal organizations involved in such illicit activities are known to have extensive resources and the capacity to target law enforcement personnel and other individuals involved in these investigations through harassment, threats, or retaliation.’”  “‘Protecting the privacy of these individuals is vital to preserving their safety and ensuring the effectiveness of ongoing and future investigations.’”  “Plaintiff does not challenge the government’s good faith in this assertion.”  “Additionally, Plaintiff provides no support in case law for the assertion that ICE employees at a GS-14 supervisory level or local equivalent have a lessened privacy interest.”  “This court previously declined to find that such a seniority limiter would be an effective way to address the issue.”
   
• Litigation Considerations, Evidentiary Showing, “Reasonably Segregable” Showing: The court relates that “Defendant argues that the agency met the duty to segregate following a line-by-line review of all responsive documents.”  The court finds that “Plaintiff has provided no information to suggest that ICE’s assessment of the segregability of the documents was in bad faith.”  “Given the presumption of good faith afforded to the agency and the nature of the child exploitation investigations, this assessment is reasonable.”