FOIA Appeal: Investigatory Reports

Legal Opinion: GMP-0058

Index: 7.370, 7.425

Subject: FOIA Appeal: Investigatory Reports

February 20, 1992

J. Patrick Mensching, Esq.

Barrow, Gaddis, Griffith & Grimm

610 S. Main, Suite 300

Tulsa, Oklahoma 74119-1248

Dear Mr. Mensching:

This is in response to your Freedom of Information Act

appeal, dated May 13, 1991, in which you appeal the denial of

information pertaining to the Inland Mortgage Corporation, which

was requested by Mr. Daniel Flick in a letter dated November 20,

1990\. You stated that the Department ignored Mr. Flick\'s

request. However, Gail Lively, Director, Executive Secretariat,

responded to Mr. Flick in a letter dated February 6, 1991.

Ms. Lively granted partial access to the documents requested and

denied access to other documents under Exemption 5 of the FOIA,

which protects the deliberative, decision making process of

government agencies by exempting predecisional materials from

public disclosure.

I understand that the United States Attorney\'s Office has,

since your appeal letter, supplied you with copies of the GNMA

default report and the Office of Lender Activities and Land Sales

Registration\'s Monitoring Division\'s Summary of Review, dated

November 26, 1990, both of which were initially denied under

Exemption 5 of the Freedom of Information Act.

I have reviewed the remaining document, a Monitoring

Division report that was denied under Exemption 5, and have

decided to affirm the initial denial of that report under

Exemption 7(A) and (D) of the FOIA. Exemption 7(A) protects

documents compiled for law enforcement purposes if their

disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with

enforcement proceedings. The Inspector General is authorized to

undertake law enforcement investigations pursuant to the

Inspector General Act of 1978. Since all documents relating to

Inland Mortgage have been compiled in connection with an on-going

Inspector General\'s investigation, they are protected from

disclosure by Exemption 7(A). I have determined that disclosure

of this record would prematurely reveal evidence that would not

otherwise be available to the public, and could impede the

gathering of additional evidence. National Public Radio v. Bell,

431 F. Supp. 509 (D.D.C. 1977); Curran v. Department of Justice,

813 F.2d 473 (1st Cir. 1987).

This document is also protected under Exemption 7(D), which

protects the names of confidential sources, as well as the

content of the material supplied by them. To reveal the names of

2

confidential sources would be contrary to a major purpose of the

exemption, which is to encourage private citizens to furnish

information to government agencies. Brant Construction Co. v.

EPA, 778 F.2d 1258 (7th Cir. 1985). Release of the document you

requested would reveal the names of potential witnesses. I,

therefore, have determined to affirm the denial of access to this

information.

Pursuant to 24 C.F.R. 15.21, I have determined that the

public interest in effective law enforcement and assuring the

protection of confidential sources under Exemption 7(A) and (D)

militates against release of the withheld information.

You have the right to judicial review of this determination

under 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4).

Very sincerely yours,

C.H. Albright, Jr.

Principal Deputy General Counsel