Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-5_12-cv-04045/USCOURTS-alnd-5_12-cv-04045-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 05:552 Freedom of Information Act

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHEASTERN DIVISION

MARK S. LANDERS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) Civil Action No. CV-12-S-4045-NE

)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT )

OF JUSTICE, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff, Mark S. Landers, filed a “Complaint for Disclosure of Agency

Documents” on December 6, 2012, asking that the Federal Bureau of Investigation

(“FBI”) be required to disclose certain information pursuant to the Freedom of

Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552. The United States Department of Justice later was 1

substituted, by consent of the parties, for the FBI. The case currently is before the

2

court on cross-motions for summary judgment. Upon consideration of the motions,

3

briefs, and evidence, the court concludes that it should conduct an in camera review

Doc. no. 1 (Complaint for Disclosure of Agency Documents). The original complaint was 1

amended on June 10, 2013, to make more specific allegations about which documents were allegedly

being withheld. Doc. no. 12 (Amended Complaint). 

See doc. no. 13 (Order substituting the United States Department of Justice for the FBI as 2

defendant).

Doc. no. 16 (plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment); doc. no. 17 (defendant’s motion 3

for summary judgment). 

FILED

 2014 Jul-24 AM 09:27

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 5:12-cv-04045-CLS Document 24 Filed 07/24/14 Page 1 of 20
of the disputed documents before rendering a final decision on the motions for

summary judgment. 

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 provides that a court “shall grant summary

judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact

and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). In

other words, summary judgment is proper “after adequate time for discovery and

upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the

existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will

bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). 

“In making this determination, the court must review all evidence and make all

reasonable inferences in favor of the party opposing summary judgment.” Chapman

v. AI Transport, 229 F.3d 1012, 1023 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (quoting Haves v.

City of Miami, 52 F.3d 918, 921 (11th Cir. 1995)). Inferences in favor of the nonmoving party are not unqualified, however. “[A]n inference is not reasonable if it is

only a guess or a possibility, for such an inference is not based on the evidence, but

is pure conjecture and speculation.” Daniels v. Twin Oaks Nursing Home, 692 F.2d

1321, 1324 (11th Cir. 1983). Moreover,

[t]he mere existence of some factual dispute will not defeat summary

2

Case 5:12-cv-04045-CLS Document 24 Filed 07/24/14 Page 2 of 20
judgment unless that factual dispute is material to an issue affecting the

outcome of the case. The relevant rules of substantive law dictate the

materiality of a disputed fact. A genuine issue of material fact does not

exist unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party

for a reasonable jury to return a verdict in its favor.

Chapman, 229 F.3d at 1023 (quoting Haves, 52 F.3d at 921) (emphasis and alteration

supplied). See also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52 (1986)

(asking “whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require

submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a

matter of law”).

“Cross motions for summary judgment do not change the

standard.” Latin Am. Music Co. v. Archdiocese of San Juan of the

Roman Catholic & Apostolic Church, 499 F.3d 32, 38 (1st Cir. 2007).

“‘Cross motions for summary judgment are to be treated separately; the

denial of one does not require the grant of another.’”Christian Heritage

Acad. v. Okla. Secondary Sch. Activities Ass’n, 483 F.3d 1025, 1030

(10th Cir. 2007) (quoting Buell Cabinet Co. v. Sudduth, 608 F.2d 431,

433 (10th Cir. 1979)). “Even where the parties file cross motions

pursuant to Rule 56, summary judgment is inappropriate if disputes

remain as to material facts.” Id.; accord Monumental Paving &

Excavating, Inc. v. Pa. Mfrs.’ Ass’n Ins. Co., 176 F.3d 794, 797 (4th Cir.

1999) (“When considering motions from both parties for summary

judgment, the court applies the same standard of review and so may not

resolve genuine issues of material fact. Instead, [the court must]

consider and rule upon each party’s motion separately and determine

whether summary judgment is appropriate as to each under the Rule 56

standard.”) (citations omitted).

Ernie Haire Ford, Inc. v. Universal Underwriters Insurance Co., 541 F. Supp. 2d

1295, 1297-98 (M.D. Fla. 2008) (alteration in original). See also American Bankers

3

Case 5:12-cv-04045-CLS Document 24 Filed 07/24/14 Page 3 of 20
Insurance Group v. United States, 408 F.3d 1328, 1331 (11th Cir. 2005) (“This court

reviews the district court’s disposition of cross-motions for summary judgment de

novo, applying the same legal standards used by the district court, viewing the

evidence and all factual inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the

non-movant, and resolving all reasonable doubts about the facts in favor of the

non-moving party.”).

II. SUMMARY OF FACTS

Plaintiff has offered no actual evidence in support of his claims. See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 56(a) (“A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must

support the assertion by: (A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record,

including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or

declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only),

admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials . . . .”). His original and

amended complaints were not verified. The only evidence he cites in his briefs is a

“Request for Discovery and Inspection” his attorney filed on November 20, 1996,

during the state court criminal proceedings. Plaintiff repeatedly attempts to 4

characterize that document as a FOIA request directed to the FBI, but that

characterization clearly is incorrect. The first sentence of the document reads:

 Doc. no. 16, at Exhibit 1 (“Request for Discovery and Inspection”).

4

4

Case 5:12-cv-04045-CLS Document 24 Filed 07/24/14 Page 4 of 20
“COMES NOW the Defendant in the above-styled cause and requests the State to

produce the following documents and/or things . . . .” Because the document does

5

not relate to a FOIA request, it is largely irrelevant to the claims in this case. The

remainder of plaintiff’s proposed facts consist of conclusory statements without any

evidentiary support. 

Nevertheless, to the extent defendant has admitted some of plaintiff’s proposed

facts, the court will consider them. Otherwise, plaintiff’s conclusory statements are

insufficient for consideration on summary judgment.

A. FBI Record Storage and Search Procedures

The FBI uses the Central Record System (“CRS”) to maintain information it

has acquired during the course of fulfilling its law enforcement responsibilities. The

CRS uses “a numerical sequence of files, called FBI ‘classifications,’ which are

broken down according to subject matter. The subject matter of a file may relate to

an individual, organization, company, publication, activity or foreign intelligence

matter (or program).” Records may be stored at FBI headquarters, or at particular

6

FBI field offices. Recordsstored in the CRS can be searched electronically by using

7

Id. at 1 (emphasis supplied). 5

 Defendant’s evidentiary submission, Exhibit 1 (Affidavit of David M. Hardy) ¶ 28. 6

Id. 7

5

Case 5:12-cv-04045-CLS Document 24 Filed 07/24/14 Page 5 of 20
a computerized system called the Automated Case Support System (“ACS”). 

8

The ACS searches the “General Indices” of the CRS, which “consist of index

cards on various subject matters” arranged in alphabetical order. The entries in the

9

General Indices fall into two categories:

(a) A “main” entry — A “main” entry, or “main” file, carries the

name corresponding with a subject of a file contained in the CRS.

(b) A “reference” entry — A “reference” entry, sometimes called

“cross-references,” are [sic] generally only a mere mention or reference

to an individual, organization, or other subject matter, contained in a

document located in another “main” file on a different subject matter.10

The FBI’s current policy is to search for and identify only potentially responsive

“main” files during the initial administrative stage of FOIA and Privacy Act requests. 

The FBI will search for and identify “cross-reference” files only “if there issufficient

information to conduct such a search.”11

B. Plaintiff’s Information Requests and the FBI’s Responses

Plaintiff, Mark Landers, was convicted of murdering his father on May 9, 1997,

and he currently isserving a life sentence without the possibility of parole. On May 12

Id. ¶¶ 28-29. 8

Id. ¶ 30. 9

Id. 10

Id. ¶ 34. 11

Hardy Affidavit ¶ 6. See also doc. no. 16 (Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment), at 12

1 (Plaintiff’s Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶¶ 1-2); doc. no. 20 (Defendant’s Opposition to

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment), at 1 (Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Statement of

6

Case 5:12-cv-04045-CLS Document 24 Filed 07/24/14 Page 6 of 20
22, 2007, he sent a letter and Freedomof Information/Privacy Act Request to the FBI,

stating: “I am requesting a copy of my entire F.B.I. file to include all records,

documents and information you have in your file pertaining to me or mentioning my

name.” By letter dated September 12, 2007, the FBI acknowledged that it had

13

received plaintiff’s request and assigned it a file number. The FBI informed plaintiff

that it was “searching the indices to our central records system for the Birmingham

Field Office for the information you requested, and will inform you of the results as

soon as possible.” The FBI searched the CRS to identify all potentially responsive

14

“main” files in the Birmingham and Montgomery Field Offices for “Mark Samuel

Landers,” “Mark S. Landers,” “Mark Landers,” “M. Samuel Landers,” “M.S.

Landers,” and “Samuel Landers.” The search did not reveal any responsive

documents. Therefore, in another letter dated October 2, 2007, the FBI stated: “To 15

promptly respond to requests, we concentrate on identifying main files in the central

records system for the Birmingham and Mobile Field Offices. No records responsive

to your FOIPA [i.e., “Freedom of Information-Privacy Acts”] request were located

by a search of the automated and manual indices.” The letter also informed plaintiff 16

Undisputed Material Facts) ¶¶ 1-2 (admitting Plaintiff’s Proposed Facts 1-2). 

 Hardy Affidavit ¶ 8 and Exhibit A. 13

Id. ¶ 9 and Exhibit B. 14

Id. ¶ 35. 15

Id. ¶ 10 and Exhibit C (alteration supplied). 16

7

Case 5:12-cv-04045-CLS Document 24 Filed 07/24/14 Page 7 of 20
of his right to file an appeal with the Office of Information and Privacy at the United

States Department of Justice within sixty days.17

Plaintiff appealed by sending a letter to the Office of Information and Privacy

on October 10, 2007. He included “copies ofsworn testimony from Alabama Bureau

ofInvestigations Officer WilliamRhengness,” which presumably originated fromthe

state court criminal proceedings. During his testimony, Officer Rhengness referred 18

to three FBI agents with whom he had worked during the investigation into the death

of plaintiff’s father. He also referred to a report in plaintiff’s “case package” that was

never provided to plaintiff or his criminal defense attorney. Plaintiff asked the Office

of Information and Privacy to “run a thorough check for this missing report.” The 19

Associate Director of Office of Information and Privacy responded to plaintiff’s

appeal with a letter dated November 5, 2007, stating, in relevant part:

After carefully considering your appeal, and as a result of

discussions between the FBI and a member of my staff, I am remanding

your request for a further search. If the FBI locates responsive records

through this search, it will send any and all releasable portions of them

to you directly, subject to any applicable fees. You may appeal any

future adverse determination made by the FBI.

If you are dissatisfied with my action on your appeal, you may

seek judicial review in accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B).

Id. 17

Id. ¶ 11 and Exhibit D. 18

 Hardy Affidavit ¶ 11 and Exhibit D. 19

8

Case 5:12-cv-04045-CLS Document 24 Filed 07/24/14 Page 8 of 20
After the matter was remanded to the FBI, it searched for “main” files in the

FBI Headquarters database containing the same six potential variations of plaintiff’s

name that had previously been searched. Plaintiff received a letter from the FBI 20

dated July 3, 2008, informing him that two pages of information responsive to his

request had been located, but that the pages would not be produced because they were

“exempt in their entirety pursuant to Title 5, United States Code, Section 552 and

Section 552(a), subsections (b)(2), (b)(6), (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(E) and (j)(2) of the

Freedom of Information and Privacy Act.” The FBI again informed plaintiff of his

21

right to file an appeal within sixty days. 

22

Plaintiff submitted an appeal to the Office of Information and Privacy on July

31, 2008. The Associate Director of the Office of Information and Privacy 23

responded to plaintiff’s appeal on November 18, 2008, stating:

After carefully considering your appeal, I am affirming, on partly

modified grounds, the FBI’s action on your request. The records

responsive to your request are exempt from the access provision of the

Privacy Act of 1974 pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552a(j)(2). See 28 C.F.R. §

16.96 (2008). Because these records are not available to you under the

Privacy Act, your request has been reviewed under the Freedom of

Information Act in order to afford you the greatest possible access to

them. 

Id. ¶ 37. 20

Id. ¶ 14 and Exhibit G. 21

Id. 22

Id. ¶ 15 and Exhibit H. 23

9

Case 5:12-cv-04045-CLS Document 24 Filed 07/24/14 Page 9 of 20
The FBI properly withheld thisinformation in its entirety because

it is protected from disclosure under the FOIA pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §

552(b)(7)(E). This provision concerns records or information compiled

for law enforcement purposes[,] the release of which would disclose

techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or

prosecutions.24

Plaintiff’s next communication with the FBI occurred on June 16, 2009, when

he wrote to request a “Vaughn Index” with regard to the two pages the FBI claimed

were exempt fromproduction. A Vaughn Index issomewhat akin to a privilege log. 25

As the Supreme Court has explained:

“Vaughn Index” is a termderived fromVaughn v. Rosen, 157 U.S.

App. D.C. 340, 484 F.2d 820 (1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 977, 94 S.

Ct. 1564, 39 L. Ed. 2d 873 (1974). The “Index” usually consists of a

detailed affidavit, the purpose of which is to “permit the court system

effectively and efficiently to evaluate the factual nature of disputed

information.” 157 U.S. App. D.C., at 346, 484 F.2d, at 826.

John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp., 493 U.S. 146, 149 n.2 (1989). There is no

indication in the record that the FBI ever responded to plaintiff’s request for a

Vaughn Index. 

Plaintiff’s next communication with the FBI occurred on June 1, 2012, when

his attorney sent the FBI a formal FOIA request stating, in pertinent part:

This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act. I am

requesting all F.B.I. files, records, and documentation relating to my

Id. ¶ 17 and Exhibit J (alteration supplied). 24

 Hardy Affidavit ¶ 18 and Exhibit K. 25

10

Case 5:12-cv-04045-CLS Document 24 Filed 07/24/14 Page 10 of 20
client, Mark SamuelLanders[,] or mentioning his name. I also request

that a “Vaughn Index” concerning any such materials related to Mr.

Landers be provided. Please search the F.B.I.’s indices to the Central

Records System for the information responsive to this request related to

Mr. Landers.

26

The FBI responded to plaintiff’s attorney on June 11, 2012, with a letter stating that

plaintiff’s request had been received for processing, and that the FBI would search

the indices to its Central Records System for information responsive to the request.

27

The FBI then sent plaintiff’s attorney a letter that was undated, but was mailed on

June 28, 2012, stating that a new search of the indices to the Central Records System

had been conducted, but it did not produce any additional records responsive to

plaintiff’s request. The FBI also stated that it had reviewed the responsive material

located in 2008, and confirmed that the material remained exempt from production

for the reasons previously stated. Plaintiff was once again informed of his right to

appeal within sixty days.28

Plaintiff’s attorney submitted an appeal to the Office of Information Policy on

August 9, 2012. The appeal letter stated:

29

 Hardy Affidavit ¶ 19 and Exhibit L (emphasis in original) (alteration supplied). 26

Id. ¶ 20 and Exhibit M.

27

Id. ¶ 21 and Exhibit N. 28

The court can discern no explanation from the record whether the “Office of Information 29

and Privacy” and the “Office of Information Policy” are the same office and, if they are not, what

is the difference between the two.

11

Case 5:12-cv-04045-CLS Document 24 Filed 07/24/14 Page 11 of 20
I am writing to appeal the FBI’s denial of my above referenced

FOIPA request relating to my client, Mark Landers. The FBI has

confirmed that they do have records relating to my client, but that such

records will not be produced. It appears that your office has previously

upheld this decision under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(E).

My client is currently serving a life without parole sentence in

Alabama for murder. It is believed that the records in the FBI’s

possession may contain exculpatory or otherwise beneficial information

in this regard. Accordingly, it is of great interest to my client to receive

some type of meaningful information concerning these records.

As I’m sure you know, it is quite a difficult task to appeal a denial

based on 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(E) when absolutely no information has

been given about the records besides the fact that they exist. However,

given the common and vast distribution of investigative materials by the

Department of Justice through the courts’ discovery process, it is

difficult to understand how the release of two (2) pages of FBI

Documentsrelated to Mr. Landers “could reasonably be expected to risk

circumvention of the law” as required by the relevant statute. As such,

my client requests a re-review of these documents to determine if such

a danger truly exists. We also ask that your office consider minimizing

any fears through redaction of the documents before they are released. 

Additionally, we request an adequate and meaningful description of any

documents withheld or redacted, and the justification for doing so.30

The Office ofInformation Policy responded to plaintiff’s appeal by letter dated

September 21, 2012, informing plaintiff that the denial of his request was affirmed

under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(E), which protects records or information compiled for

law enforcement purposes. Plaintiff’s request for an itemization and justification for

each item withheld was denied, as plaintiff was “not entitled to such a listing at the

Id. ¶ 22 and Exhibit O. 30

12

Case 5:12-cv-04045-CLS Document 24 Filed 07/24/14 Page 12 of 20
administrative stage of processing FOIA requests and appeals.”31

The next action occurred on December 6, 2012, when plaintiff filed his

complaint in this case. The FBI conducted a “cross-reference” search on February 32

8, 2013, and located one cross-reference concerning plaintiff in a ViCAP file. Upon

33

further investigation, the FBI determined that the file actually was a “main” file, and

that it had been erroneously indexed as a cross-reference. The FBI also determined 34

that the two responsive pages it previously located actually were only a ViCAP

summary printout and, after consulting with ViCAP, the FBI was able to locate 23

additional responsive pages.

35

Consequently, the FBI mailed plaintiff a letter on March 27, 2013, stating, in

pertinent part:

Id. ¶ 24 and Exhibit Q. 31

 Doc. no. 1 (Complaint). 32

 ViCAP is an acronym for “Violent Criminal Apprehension Program.” 

33

ViCAP maintains a large investigative repository of information relating to major

violent crimes, including homicide. ViCAP’s mission is to operate and maintain the

ViCAP Web National Crime Database. This is a nationwide investigative repository

of violent crimes. ViCAP provides crime analysis support to investigative and

analytical components of crimes. ViCAP provides crime analysis support to

investigative and analytical components of local, state, and federal law enforcement

agencies by collecting, assessing, collating, and analyzing case information. They

also provide investigative leads and recommendations, develop and produce

analytical products, and facilitate multi-agency coordination.

Hardy Affidavit ¶ 7.

Id. ¶ 39. 34

Id. ¶ 40. 35

13

Case 5:12-cv-04045-CLS Document 24 Filed 07/24/14 Page 13 of 20
In addition to the original search conducted in connection with

your request, the FBI conducted another search including a search of

cross-reference files. This additional search identified Mobile Field

Office file 252B-MO-36103 and file IR252A-C936. The responsive

records fromthese files have been processed and information not subject

to a FOIA exemption is being released to you. Of the 74 pages

processed, 15 pages were withheld in part per a FOIA exemption, 35

pages were withheld in full per a FOIA exemption, 9 pages were

withheld as duplicates, and 15 pages were released in full.

The enclosed documents are exempt from disclosure in their

entirety pursuant to the Privacy Act, Title 5, United States Code, Section

552(a), subsection (j)(2). However, these records have been processed

pursuant to the FreedomofInformation Act, Title 5, United StatesCode,

Section 552, thereby affording you the greatest degree of access

authorized by both laws.

Plaintiff also wasinformed that he had the right to appeal to the Office of Information

Policy within sixty days.36

In another letter dated June 20, 2013, the FBI informed plaintiff as follows:

Following further consultation with subject matter experts

working within the FBI’s Violent Criminal Apprehension Program

(“VICAP”), the FBI has determined that additional information may be

released to you. Enclosed are four pages which were initially removed

in full per FOIA exemptions as listed in the FBI’s March 27, 2013

release letter. The pages were marked FBI Bates Pages Landers-50,

Landers-51, Landers-73 and Landers-74. Two of these pages are now

being released in part (Landers-50 and Landers-73) with applicable

FOIA exemptions asserted and two pages are being released in full

(Landers-51 and Landers-74).

37

Id. ¶ 26 and Exhibit R, at 2. 36

Id. ¶ 27 and Exhibit S, at 2. 37

14

Case 5:12-cv-04045-CLS Document 24 Filed 07/24/14 Page 14 of 20
The letter indicated on a previous page that the FBI was relying on the exemptions

found in 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(b)(6), 552(b)(7)(C), and 552a(j)(2).38

III. DISCUSSION

The Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) requires federal agencies to make

certain records and other information available to the public upon request. See

generally 5 U.S.C. § 552(a). “The purpose of FOIA ‘is to encourage public

disclosure of information so citizens may understand what their government is

doing.’” Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida v. United States, 516 F.3d 1235,

1244 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting Office of Capital Collateral Counsel, Northern

Region of Fla. v. United States Department of Justice, 331 F.3d 799, 802 (11th Cir.

2003)). As such, FOIA is “a broad disclosure statute which evidences a ‘strong

public policy in favor of public access to information in the possession of federal

agencies.’” Cochran v. United States, 770 F.2d 949, 954 (11th Cir. 1985) (citations

omitted).

Even so, “‘Congress realized that legitimate governmental and private interests

could be harmed by release of certain types of information,’ . . . and provided for

certain exceptions to the rule of broad disclosure.” News-Press v. United States

Department of Homeland Security, 489 F.3d 1173, 1191 (11th Cir. 2007) (quoting

Id., Exhibit S, at 1. 38

15

Case 5:12-cv-04045-CLS Document 24 Filed 07/24/14 Page 15 of 20
Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Abramson, 456 U.S. 615, 621 (1982)). In keeping

with the policy behind the Act, the exceptions are construed narrowly, and the

government bears the burden of proving that a requested document is exempted.

Moye, O’Brien, O’Rourke, Hogan, & Pickert v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 376

F.3d 1270, 1277 (11th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). The government can satisfy that

burden by producing affidavits or a Vaughn Index, or by submitting the withheld

documents to the court for in camera review. Miccosukee Tribe, 516 F.3d at 1258. 

Any affidavits must “provide an adequate factual basis for the district court to render

a decision.” Id. (citing Miscavige v. I.R.S., 2 F.3d 366, 368 (11th Cir. 1993)). If the

government relies on a Vaughn index, it must contain “‘a relatively detailed

justification, specifically identifying the reasons why a particular exemption is

relevant and correlating those claims with the particular part of a withheld document

to which they apply.’” Id. (quoting Mead Data Central, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Air

Force, 566 F.2d 242, 251 (D.C. Cir. 1977), and also citing Dellums v. Powell, 642

F.2d 1351, 1361 (D.C. Cir. 1980)).

If an individual believes an agency has wrongly withheld information or

records, he can file a complaint with a federal district court, which “has jurisdiction

to enjoin the agency from withholding agency records and to order the production of

any agency records improperly withheld from the complainant.” 5 U.S.C. §

16

Case 5:12-cv-04045-CLS Document 24 Filed 07/24/14 Page 16 of 20
552(a)(4)(B). “In such a case the court shall determine the matter de novo, and may

examine the contents of such agency records in camera to determine whether such

records or any part thereof shall be withheld under any of the exemptions set forth in

subsection (b) of this section, and the burden is on the agency to sustain its action.” 

Id. 

Defendant relies upon FOIA exemptions 6, 7(C), 7(D), and 7(E) to support its

withholding and redaction of certain pages requested by plaintiff. Exemption 6

allows the government to withhold “personnel and medical files and similar files the

disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal

privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6). Exemption 7 allows the government to withhold the

following items, among others:

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 nationalsecurity 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 . . . .

17

Case 5:12-cv-04045-CLS Document 24 Filed 07/24/14 Page 17 of 20
5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7). Pursuant to Exemptions 6 and 7(c), the FBI states that it has

withheld the names and/or other identifying information for “FBI special agents and

support personnel, third parties who provided information to the FBI, third parties

merely mentioned in the records, and state and/or local law enforcement officers.”39

The FBI also states that it has asserted Exemption 7(D) “to protect confidential

sources and confidential source information.” Finally, the FBI states that it has

40

asserted Exemption 7(E) “to protect interviewing methods, local law enforcement

agency documents, behavioral analysis questions, and sensitive ViCAP

information.”41

As evidentiary support for the application of those exemptions, defendant

offers the affidavit of David M. Hardy, the Section Chief of the FBI’s

Record/Information Dissemination Section, who spendsthirty-six paragraphs,spread

over approximately seventeen pages, explaining the reasons for withholding

documents pursuant to each exemption. Defendant also provides copies of all the

documents it did produce to plaintiff, and a Vaughn Index detailing, for each 42

category of information requested by plaintiff: the total number of pages; the date of

Doc. no. 18 (Memorandum in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment), 39

at 22.

Id. at 25-26. 40

Id. at 26. 41

 Hardy Affidavit, at Exhibit U. 42

18

Case 5:12-cv-04045-CLS Document 24 Filed 07/24/14 Page 18 of 20
creation; any applicable exemption and an explanation of its application; the FBI’s

decision on the request; and the corresponding paragraphs of Hardy’s affidavit.43

Upon review of all the information currently in the record, the court isinclined

to conclude that defendant has satisfied its burden of proving it properly withheld

and/or redacted portions of the requested information pursuant to the cited

exemptions. Even so, out of an abundance of caution, and, in keeping with the

“‘strong public policy in favor of public access to information in the possession of

federal agencies,’” the court will conduct an in camera review of the contested

documents to determine whether they fall under any of the applicable exemptions. 

Cochran, 770 F.2d at 954.

IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

In accordance with the foregoing, defendant is ORDERED to produce, for in

camera review, all of the documents it has withheld in response to plaintiff’s FOIA

requests. Paper copies of those documents must be organized in a three-ring binder

and submitted to the chambers of the undersigned on or before the close of business

on August 14, 2014.

Id. at Exhibit T. 43

19

Case 5:12-cv-04045-CLS Document 24 Filed 07/24/14 Page 19 of 20
DONE this 24th day of July, 2014.

______________________________

United States District Judge

20

Case 5:12-cv-04045-CLS Document 24 Filed 07/24/14 Page 20 of 20