Zavadovsky v. Rabl, No 24-1997, 2025 WL 2466024 (D.D.C. Aug. 27, 2025) (Contreras, J.)

Zavadovsky v. Rabl, No 24-1997, 2025 WL 2466024 (D.D.C. Aug. 27, 2025) (Contreras, J.)

Re: Request for records concerning [United States Secret Service’s (“USSS”)] investigation of Plaintiffs’ alleged insurance fraud

Disposition:  Granting defendant’s motion to dismiss

• Litigation Considerations, Pleadings:  The court holds that “FOIA does not grant jurisdiction over individuals, even when the individuals are named in their official capacities.”  “Because Plaintiffs named the USSS Director as a defendant in his official capacity, the Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s FOIA claim against the USSS Director.”  “However, considering that this is a curable defect, the Court will not dismiss the FOIA claim against the USSS Director on that basis and will instead move forward to consider the substance of the claim.”
   
• Exemption 7, Threshold; Exemption 7(A):  The court holds that “USSS has provided a sufficiently detailed explanation to justify withholding the records under Exemption 7(A).”  “As a threshold matter, ‘the Secret Service compiled the records at issue pursuant to its law enforcement function.’”  “This confirms that the information was gathered in furtherance of its statutory law enforcement responsibilities.”
  
  “Additionally, the records pertain to an ongoing Austrian law enforcement investigation involving Plaintiffs.”  “When a foreign investigative authority is involved in criminal proceedings concerning Plaintiffs, the resulting tie between the individuals/incidents and potential security risks or violations of U.S. federal law suffices to invoke FOIA Exemption 7(A).”  “In this context, it is noteworthy that this FOIA request further highlights that the claims center on a dispute with Austrian authorities concerning a criminal investigation involving Plaintiffs in Austria.” “Importantly, this exemption ‘makes no distinction between foreign and domestic enforcement purposes.’”  “Thus, the USSS’s participation in a cooperative international law enforcement matter and its withholding of records compiled in that context fulfill the requirements of the first prong under Exemption 7(A).” “The USSS has met the second prong by clearly identifying a pending law enforcement proceeding and demonstrating a risk of perceptible interference.”  “The USSS invoked Exemption 7(A) to withhold information that, if released, might reasonably be expected to disrupt ongoing enforcement proceedings.”  “The documents pertain to an active investigation involving Plaintiffs by Austrian law enforcement, who continue to pursue criminal charges against Plaintiffs and have requested that the records remain confidential to avoid jeopardizing the case.”  “This request from Austrian authorities supports the USSS Director’s position that a concrete and ongoing law enforcement proceeding exists.”
  
  “The Court also concludes that the potential harm resulting from disclosure of the USSS records at issue is reasonably foreseeable.” “First, the records at issue were compiled as part of the USSS’s cooperation with an ongoing foreign criminal investigation – an Austrian prosecution involving Plaintiffs – and include sensitive law enforcement information obtained pursuant to international law enforcement collaboration.”  “The Austrian authorities have explicitly requested that the materials remain confidential, and they also confirm that premature disclosure could jeopardize the investigation by revealing information about the scope and direction of the case.”  “This is not a speculative harm.”  “The interference is both concrete and imminent:  disclosure would reveal investigatory techniques, cooperation strategies, and potentially the identity or role of individuals involved, any of which could compromise Austria’s ability to effectively investigate and prosecute criminal conduct.”  “Second, the connection between the harm and the information withheld is direct.”  “The documents concern not only Plaintiffs, but they also concern the broader contours of a foreign criminal investigation, which remains active.”  “Here, the potential harms include Plaintiffs gaining insight into investigatory targets, witness identities, or the lines of inquiry being pursued by Austrian authorities.” “This would plainly ‘perceptibly interfere’ with the proceedings.”