Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-99-05402/USCOURTS-caDC-99-05402-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 895
Nature of Suit: Freedom of Information Act of 1974
Cause of Action: 

---

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Submitted October 16, 2000 Decided December 1, 2000

No. 99-5402

Gail G. Billington,

Appellant

v.

U.S. Department of Justice,

Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(92cv00462)

Gail G. Billington, appearing pro se, was on the briefs for

appellant.

Wilma A. Lewis, U.S. Attorney, R. Craig Lawrence and

Scott S. Harris, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, were on the brief

for appellee.

USCA Case #99-5402 Document #559811 Filed: 12/01/2000 Page 1 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Before: Williams, Randolph, and Tatel, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge Randolph.

Randolph, Circuit Judge: Gail Billington's efforts to pry

loose information from the Department of Justice are chronicled in the two lower court opinions that preceded this appeal.

See Billington v. Department of Justice, 11 F. Supp. 2d 45

(D.D.C. 1998) (Billington I), and Billington v. Department of

Justice, 69 F. Supp. 2d 128 (D.D.C. 1999) (Billington II). In

brief, Gail Billington and her husband Michael were members

of the National Caucus of Labor Committees (NCLC), a

political organization founded by Lyndon LaRouche in the

1960s. Mr. Billington and other members were prosecuted

and convicted in the 1980s for fund-raising irregularities. In

1991 and 1992, Gail Billington filed several Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with the Federal Bureau of

Investigation seeking information relating to the federal and

state investigations of the NCLC. She believes this information will exculpate her husband and other convicted NCLC

members. The FBI withheld some responsive documents in

full and released others in redacted form, citing exemptions 1,

2, 3, 5, 6, 7(C), 7(D), and 7(E) to FOIA. See 5 U.S.C.

s 552(b)(1)-(7). Billington challenged several of those claims

of exemption in this suit.1

The district court divided the case into two stages, the first

to consider all documents but those contained in four FBI

"Internal Security" files and the second to consider documents from those four files. In Billington I, the court upheld

all of the government's withholdings and redactions under

exemptions 1, 2, 3, and 5 to FOIA. It upheld most of the

government's exemption 7(C) withholdings, but ordered the

government to reevaluate withholdings relating to a deceased

individual and to information that had previously been disclosed to another FOIA requester. The court also upheld

__________

1 Billington is also a plaintiff in the NCLC's civil rights suit

against the Attorney General and the Director of the FBI in the

Southern District of New York. Several of Billington's claims in

the instant case relate to redactions on documents the government

has filed under seal in that case.

USCA Case #99-5402 Document #559811 Filed: 12/01/2000 Page 2 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

most of the government's exemption 7(D) withholdings, but

ordered the FBI to provide a supplemental affidavit justifying

redactions concerning entities that received, rather than provided, information on a confidential basis. The court also

found a State Department declaration justifying exemption 6

withholdings insufficient and ordered an in camera review of

the documents. See 11 F. Supp. 2d 45 (D.D.C. 1998).

In Billington II, the district court upheld the government's

withholdings under exemptions 1, 2, 7(C), 7(D), and 7(E),

including some withholdings it had questioned in Billington I.

See 69 F. Supp. 2d 128 (D.D.C. 1999).

On appeal, Billington challenges certain of the government's exemption 6,2 7(C), 7(D), and 7(E)3 withholdings. She

also challenges the sufficiency of one Internal Revenue Service declaration and the propriety of the district court reviewing another in camera. We have nothing to add to the

district court's sound reasoning with respect to the government's withholding parts or all of documents under exemp-

__________

2 Exemption 6 permits the government to withhold "personnel

and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would

constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." See

5 U.S.C. s 552(b)(6).

3 Exemption 7 permits the government to withhold "records or

information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the

extent that the production of such law enforcement records or

information * * * (C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an

unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, (D) could reasonably be

expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, including a

State, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private institution

which furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case

of a record or information compiled by criminal law enforcement

authority in the course of a criminal investigation or by an agency

conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, information furnished by a confidential source, (E) would disclose

techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or

prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement

investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be

expected to risk circumvention of the law * * *." See 5 U.S.C.

s 552(b)(7).

tions 7(C) and 7(E), and therefore reject this portion of

Billington's appeal substantially for the reasons given by the

district court. Of the remaining issues we reverse and remand (with one exception, see note 5 infra) for the reasons

given in the balance of this opinion.

I.

FOIA requires the government to disclose, upon request,

broad classes of documents identified in 5 U.S.C. s 552(a). It

exempts from disclosure nine categories of documents described in 5 U.S.C. s 552(b). The government is entitled to

summary judgment if no material facts are in dispute and if it

demonstrates either that withheld or redacted documents are

not required to be disclosed under s 552(a) or are exempt

from disclosure under s 552(b). See, e.g., Computer ProfesUSCA Case #99-5402 Document #559811 Filed: 12/01/2000 Page 3 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

sionals for Social Responsibility v. United States Secret

Serv., 72 F.3d 897, 902 (D.C. Cir. 1996); Gallant v. NLRB, 26

F.3d 168, 171 (D.C. Cir. 1994). We review the district court's

grant of summary judgment de novo. See Spirko v. United

States Postal Serv., 147 F.3d 992, 998 (D.C. Cir. 1998);

Nation Magazine v. United States Customs Serv., 71 F.3d

885, 889 (D.C. Cir. 1995).

A.

The government withheld or redacted numerous documents

under exemption 7(D), which protects law enforcement information obtained from sources who received an express or

implied assurance of confidentiality. See Campbell v. United

States Dep't of Justice, 164 F.3d 20, 34 (D.C. Cir. 1998). The

question posed in exemption 7(D) cases "is not whether the

requested document is of the type that the agency usually

treats as confidential, but whether the particular source spoke

with an understanding that the communication would remain

confidential." United States Dep't of Justice v. Landano, 508

U.S. 165, 172 (1993). Landano rejected the government's

suggestion that assurances of confidentiality are "inherently

implicit" when somebody provides information to a federal

law enforcement agency. See 508 U.S. at 174-78.

USCA Case #99-5402 Document #559811 Filed: 12/01/2000 Page 4 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

In this case, the government's justifications for withholding

or redacting certain documents under exemption 7(D) fall

short of the particularized justification Landano requires.

The government's declarations do not sufficiently detail certain express assurances of confidentiality and do not adequately explain implied assurances of confidentiality for information received after 1977.

The government employed a coding system to correlate

claims of exemption on responsive documents to the justifications in its declarations. It identified seven exemption 7(D)

categories using the notations (b)(7)(D)-1, (b)(7)(D)-2, and so

on through (b)(7)(D)-7. See Joint Appendix 43-44. Billington challenges four of these categories: (b)(7)(D)-3 ("name

and information provided by source with an expressed promise of confidentiality"), (b)(7)(D)-4 ("name, identifying data

and information provided with an implied promise of confidentiality"), (b)(7)(D)-5 ("information provided by non-federal

law enforcement agencies under an implied promise of confidentiality"), and (b)(7)(D)-7 ("name of a foreign government

agency who has an expressed promise of confidentiality").

See Joint Appendix 43-44.

The government's declarations justifying exemptions coded

(b)(7)(D)-3 do not "present 'probative evidence that the

source did in fact receive an express grant of confidentiality'."

See Campbell v. United States Dep't of Justice, 164 F.3d 20,

34 (D.C. Cir. 1998). The FBI's August 29, 1997, declarations

supporting the (b)(7)(D)-3 redactions state that "this information was received with the explicit understanding that it

would be held in the strictest confidence. It is obvious from

the released information that these sources warrant confidentiality." Joint Appendix 55. This may be obvious to the

affiant, but it is not obvious to us. This bald assertion that

express assurances were given amounts to little more than

recitation of the statutory standard, which we have held is

insufficient. See Campbell, 164 F.3d at 30 ("the affidavits

must show, with reasonable specificity, why the documents

fall within the exemption. The affidavits will not suffice if the

agency's claims are conclusory, merely reciting statutory

standards, or if they are too vague or sweeping."); King v.

USCA Case #99-5402 Document #559811 Filed: 12/01/2000 Page 5 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Dep't of Justice, 830 F.2d 210, 219 (D.C. Cir.

1987). The declaration goes on to state that "the manner in

which the FBI actually obtains information from these

sources is also demonstrative of the express promise of

confidentiality under which it was received. The information

is often received at times and at locations which guarantee

the contact will not be noticed." Joint Appendix 56. The

circumstances under which the FBI receives information

might support a finding of an implied assurance of confidentiality, but they do not demonstrate the oral or written act

required for an express assurance of confidentiality. Cf.

Landano, 508 U.S. at 179 (suggesting "generic circumstances

in which an implied assurance of confidentiality fairly can be

inferred").

The FBI's March 11, 1998, declaration at least avers that

evidence of express assurances exists, recorded either on the

document containing the information or in some other place.

Such a memorialization made contemporaneously with a report summarizing information received from a confidential

source certainly suffices. See Campbell, 164 F.3d at 34. The

trouble is that several of the contested documents do not

contain the notations mentioned in the March 11 declaration.4

The giving of express assurances may well be recorded

elsewhere, but the mere recitation of that fact does not

provide "detailed and specific information demonstrating 'that

material withheld is logically within the domain of the exemption claimed'." Campbell, 164 F.3d at 30. At the very least

the government must indicate where these assurances of

confidentiality are memorialized. In light of these deficiencies, we reverse the grant of summary judgment as to

documents that do not reveal an express assurance of confidentiality on their face and remand to allow the government

to make a stronger showing.5

__________

4 Billington has withdrawn her challenge to documents that state

a source received an express assurance of confidentiality. See

Appellant's Reply Brief at 16.

5 We have reviewed and now reject Billington's objections to the

government's (b)(7)(D)-7 (express assurances of confidentiality to

USCA Case #99-5402 Document #559811 Filed: 12/01/2000 Page 6 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Billington also attacks redactions based on an implied

assurance of confidentiality coded (b)(7)(D)-4 and (b)(7)(D)-5.

The character of the crime and the source's relation to it may

support an inference that the source provided information

under an implied assurance of confidentiality. See Landano,

508 U.S. at 179. The FBI's March 11, 1998, declaration and

attached exhibits indicate that law enforcement sources would

not have cooperated absent an implied assurance of confidentiality. They amply document the NCLC's violent tendencies

and appetite for vengeance. See Joint Appendix Under Seal

41-43 and Exhibit 1.

The government's documentation primarily concerns the

period before 1978. As Billington points out, the FBI itself

recognized that the NCLC in the late 1970s publicly disavowed violence in favor of seeking change through the political process. Two FBI documents dated July and September

1977 report the change in organizational focus, note the

absence of recent violent incidents associated with the NCLC,

and recommend closure of investigations into the NCLC.

According to Billington, the FBI's recognition of a reincarnated NCLC indicates that FBI sources after 1977 might have

cooperated without an implied assurance of confidentiality.

Implied confidentiality analysis proceeds from the perspective of an informant, not the law enforcement agency as

Billington's argument assumes. However, the government's

perceptions are relevant insofar as they reflect changes in the

NCLC that were perceptible to informants. Several of the

redactions for which the government invoked an implied

assurance of confidentiality contain information provided to

the FBI in the 1980s, well after the NCLC underwent a

public metamorphosis. As a result, we cannot be certain that

the circumstances suggesting an implied assurance of confi-

__________

foreign governments) withholdings. The FBI's March 11, 1998, and

October 29, 1998, declarations adequately document the giving of

express assurances of confidentiality to the relevant foreign agencies.

USCA Case #99-5402 Document #559811 Filed: 12/01/2000 Page 7 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

dentiality obtained in the 1980s.6 A remand is therefore

appropriate to require the government to identify or supply

evidence that informants predicated their assistance on an

implied assurance of confidentiality after 1977.7

B.

Billington also claims that declarations provided by the

Department of State and the Internal Revenue Service are

inadequate because they contain insufficient segregability

analysis. We agree. Under FOIA, "any reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be provided to any person

requesting such record after deletion of the portions which

are exempt under this subsection." 5 U.S.C. s 552(b). This

segregability requirement limits claims of exemption to discrete units of information; to withhold an entire document, all

units of information in that document must fall within a

statutory exemption. See Trans-Pacific Policing Agreement

v. United States Customs Serv., 177 F.3d 1022, 1027 (D.C.

Cir. 1999) ("It has long been a rule in this Circuit that nonexempt portions of a document must be disclosed unless they

are inextricably intertwined with exempt portions."). If the

parties do not address segregability, the district court must

raise it sua sponte. See Trans-Pacific, 177 F.3d at 1028.

The Internal Revenue Service heavily redacted two documents. See Joint Appendix 117 and 128. The Service's

declaration contains no segregability analysis, and the district

court made no segregability finding. We therefor must re-

__________

6 A couple of documents in the exhibits to the FBI's March 11,

1998, declaration (under seal) elliptically suggest the NCLC continued to harass its opponents into the 1980s. One is a heavily

redacted letter dated September 24, 1982, located in Exhibit II.

The other is a memorandum dated February 1, 1983, located in

Exhibit I, part 2.

7 We have doubts that NCLC members' participation in financial

crimes in the 1980s, without more, would support an inference that

sources received an implied assurance of confidentiality. Cf.

Schrecker v. United States Dep't of Justice, 74 F. Supp. 2d 26, 35

(D.D.C. 1999) (passport fraud and contempt of Congress found

sufficiently serious to infer confidentiality).

mand for a finding in this regard. The court also received an

in camera declaration, which Billington correctly notes is

disfavored. See Armstrong v. Executive Office of the President, 97 F.3d 575, 580-81 (D.C. Cir. 1996) ("Case law in this

Circuit is clear that when a district court uses an in camera

affidavit, it must both make its reasons for doing so clear and

make as much as possible of the in camera submission

available to the opposing party."). Because the Service's

public declaration is sufficient in all respects except segregability, we need not decide the propriety of the in camera

declaration.

The State Department withheld a 14-page document containing notes from an interview in its entirety and released a

one-page document with a couple of lines redacted. The

district court initially found the Department's declaration

USCA Case #99-5402 Document #559811 Filed: 12/01/2000 Page 8 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

inadequate to support the Department's exemption 6 claim

and ordered an in camera review of the documents. See

Billington I, 11 F. Supp. 2d at 71-72. In Billington II, the

district court made no written findings regarding the in

camera review. In addition, the Department's declaration

appears inadequate to support withholding the entire 14-page

document. It may turn out that no further meaningful

segregation of information can be made, but we cannot tell

from the record. We are also uncertain that personal identifying information so permeates the document that no part of

it can be released. On remand, the district court should

determine the applicability of exemption 6 to these documents

and examine whether any non-exempt portions can be released.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.

USCA Case #99-5402 Document #559811 Filed: 12/01/2000 Page 9 of 9