UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE DIS TRICT OF COLUM BIA
FREDERI CK BAN KS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 06-1950 ( EGS) ) DEPARTMENT OF J USTI CE, et al. , ) ) Def endants. )

MEMORAN DUM OP INION Plaintiff filed a ten- count Complaint under the F ree dom of Information Ac t (“F OIA”) , see 5 U.S.C. § 552, and the Privacy Act, see5 U.S.C. § 552a, ag ainst various g overnme nt entities, alleg ing the ir failure to relea se re quested infor mation about himself, other individuals, and corpor ate e ntities. This m atter is bef ore the Court on the parties’ cross-motions for summar y judgme nt with respec t to plaintiff’s FOIA claims ag ainst the United States Postal Investig ation Service (“U SPI S”) (Counts Five a nd Six ) and the Fe dera l Bure au of Prisons (“ BO P”) (Counts Nine and T en). The Court will deny the motions without prejudice
. I . BA CKGROUND A. United States Postal Inve stigati on Servic e (

Counts Five and Six) Acc ordingto the Complaint, “[ p]l aintiff[] propounded a rene wed r equest to the [USPI S] under the [FOI A],” Compl. ¶ 13, and the USPI S “did not provide the re quested re cords.” Id. ¶ 14. Plaintiff neither spec ified a pa rticular r equest by

trac king numbe r, nor indicated the date on which he submitted the re quest. See id.

1Acc ordingto the USPI S, between 2005 a nd 2009, plaintiff submitted seven F OIA reque sts, three of which ar e re levant to this action. SeeMem. of P. & A . in Supp. of Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss and for

Summ. J . [Dkt. #54] , Ex . B ( “B axter Dec l.”) [Dkt. #54-3] ¶ 4. These thre e reque sts were dated De cembe r 28, 2004, Jul y 11, 2005, and Mar ch 19, 2006, and the USPI S assig ned ea ch a se para

te trac king numbe r. Id. ¶¶ 4- 5, 11 and 14. The Court alre ady

has g rante d summary

judgme nt in the USPI S’ favor with respec t to the Marc h 19, 2006 reque st (FOIA No. 2006-F PI S-00167), which the a g ency rec eived on Ma

rch 24, 2006. Banks v. D ep’t of Justice , 538 F. Supp. 2d 228, 234-35 (D .D.C. 2008). Remainingfor this Court’s resolution, then, ar e the a dequac y of the USPI S’ sear ch for rec ords re sponsive to plaintiff’s De cembe r 28, 2004, and July 11, 2005, FOIA re quests (re spectively , FOIA Nos. 2005- FPI S-00020 and 2005-F PI S-00180), and the a g ency ’s justification for withholding cer tain information under

Ex emptions 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7. See id. ; Banks v. D ep’t of Justice , 605 F. Supp. 2d 131, 142 (D.D.C. 2009).

B. Fede ral Bureau of Prisons (Counts Nine and Ten) The Court alre ady

has conc luded that the B OP’s sear ch for rec ords re sponsive to plaintiff’s F OIA re quest was a dequate and re asonable under the circ umstances. See B anks , 605 F. Supp. at 140. Missing f rom the re cord at that time was an e x planation for the ag ency ’s decision to withhold in full “four pag es of r ecor ds found in plaintiff’s Centra l and Medica l Files” under F OIA Exempti ons 5, 6, 7(C), and 7( F)
. Id. For this reason, the Court de nied summary judgme nt without prejudice a s to Counts Nine and T en. Id.

2I I . DI SCUS SI ON A. Summary J

udgment in a FOIA Case The Court may

g rant a motion for summary

judgme nt “if the plea dings, the discovery and disclosure mate rials on file, a nd any aff idavits show that there is no g enuine issue a s to any materia l fac t and that the movant is entitled to judgme nt as a matter of law.” Fe d. R. Civ. P
. 56(c) . The movingparty

bear s the burden of

demonstratingan abse nce of a g enuine issue of materia l fac t. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). F actua l assertions in the moving pa

rty ’s af fidavits may

be ac cepte d as true unle ss the opposing pa rty submits hi s own aff idavits, declar ations or documenta ry evidenc e to the contr ary . Neal v. Kelly , 963 F.2d 453, 456 (D.C. Cir. 1992). In a F OIA ca se, the Court may g rant summary

judgme nt based on the infor mation provided in af

fidavits or dec larations when these submissions describe “ the documents a nd the justifications for nondisclosure w ith reasona bly specific detail, demonstrate that the information withheld logic ally

falls within the claimed e x emption, and ar e not controve rted by either c ontrary evidenc e in the re cord nor by evidenc e of a g ency

bad fa ith.” Military Audit Project v. Casey , 656 F.2d 724, 738 ( D.C. Cir. 1981). Such aff idavits or decla

rations ar e ac corde d “a pr esumption of g ood faith, which c annot be r ebutted by ‘pure ly specula tive claims about the e x istence a nd discovera bility of other doc uments.’” SafeCard Servs., Inc . v. Sec . & Exc h. Comm’n , 926 F.2d 1197, 1200 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (quoting Ground Sauce r W atch, Inc . v. Cent. Intelligenc e Age ncy , 692 F.2d 770, 771 ( D.C. Cir. 1981)).

3B. The USPIS’ Motion for Summary Judgm ent W ill Be Denied W

ithout Prejudice 1. The USPI S Does Not Demonstrate that its Searche s for Rec ords Responsive to Plainti ff’ s FOIA Requests Were A dequate “An a g ency

fulfills its obl iga

tions under FO IA if it can de monstrate beyond materia l doubt that its search w as ‘r easona bly calc ulated to uncove r all re levant docume nts.’” ValenciaLucena v. U

nited States Coast Guard , 180 F.3d 321, 325 ( D.C. Cir. 1999) (quoting Truit t v. Dep’ t of State , 897 F.2d 540, 542 ( D.C. Cir. 1990)). “[T]he issue to be resolved is not whe ther there might exist any

other doc uments possibly responsive to the r equest, but rather whe ther the
sear ch for those documents wa s adequate.” W eisberg v. U

nited States Dep’t of Justice , 705 F.2d 1344, 1351 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (c iting Perry v . Block, 684 F.2d 121, 128 ( D.C. Cir. 1982) (per curiam)). “T he ag ency

is require d to set forth the sea rch te rms used and the sear ch conduc ted, . .
. as we ll as to describe the structure of the file sy stems searc hed[.] ” Int’l Counsel Bureau v. United States Dep’ t of Defense , 657 F. Supp. 2d 33, 38 (D.D .C. 2009) (citations omitted). The ag ency “may rely upon rea sonably

detailed, nonc onclusory

aff idavits submit ted in g ood faith” to demonstrate the adequa cy of its searc h. W

eisberg , 705 F.2d at 128 (citations omitted). I n the absenc e of c ontrary

evidenc e, such a ffidavits or de clar ations are sufficie nt to demonstrate an ag ency ’s compliance with the FOIA. Id . at 127; see M ilitar y Audit Project v . Casey , 656 F.2d 724, 738 (D.C. Cir. 1981). I f the re cord “ leave s substantial doubt as to the sufficienc y of the
sear ch, summary

judgme nt for the a g ency

is not proper.” Truit t , 897 F.2d at 542. a. The USPI S I nvestig ative F ile Sy stem The USPI S is t he “la

w enf orce ment component of the United States Postal Service[.] ” Bax ter De cl. ¶ 1. “ The Chief Postal Inspector is the of ficial c ustodian of all Inspection Service

4rec ords, including rec ords re lating to c riminal investigations that are maintaine d by the [USP I S] .” Mem. of P. & A . in Supp. of Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, f or Summ. J . [Dkt. #20], Decl. of L awr ence Katz (“Katz Decl.”) [Dkt. #23-1] ¶ 2. Files conta ining r ecor ds of the USPI S’ active c riminal, civil and administrative investig ations g ener ally are located “ in the responsible Inspection Service field division office[,] and closed ca se files a re store d in Inspection Service Oper ations Support Centers until transfer red to a Fe dera l rec ords ce nter.” Id. Investig ative files “ may

contain investig ative re ports, notes and memora nda, bac kg round data includingarr est rec ords, statements of infor mants and witnesses, labor atory repor ts of evidenc e ana ly sis, searc h war rants, [and] sum mons[ es] and subpoenas,” and also may contain
rec ords per

taining to c onsensual ele ctronic sur veillance . Katz Decl. ¶

18. In addition, the Investig ative F ile Sy stem may contain per sonal data suc h as fing erpr int and handwr iting samples, voicepr ints, photogra

phs, and individual personne l and pay roll information. Id. In order to retrie ve per sonal data f

rom these f

iles, one uses a

n individual’s name or Socia l Security number
as a se arc h term. Id. Two sy stems of rec ords, the Inspection Service Databa se Information Sy stem (“I SDBI S”) and the Inspection Service ’s Integ rate d Information Sy stem (“I SI I S”), “conta in additional or summary duplicative ca se files a

nd other infor

mation in support of investigations.” Id. For

example, the I SI I S “contains the c ase ma nag ement sy stem utili zed by postal inspectors to trac k and docume nt USPI S criminal investigative case s.” B axter Dec l. ¶ 5. b. Request No. 2005-F PI S-00020 In his Dece mber 28, 2004 re quest, plaintiff soug ht information perta ining to himself and entities called V ampire N ation, Hexag on, L L C, Hexagon Rec ords, Sear ch Sy ndicate, I nc., Mera kesh Arma

no, HL L C, and HL C. Katz Decl., Ex. A at 1. In addition, plaintiff reque sted
5rec ords per taining to nine individuals. Id. at 1-2. He specifie d that “[t] he sea rche s should not be limit ed to cr iminal files.” Id. at 1. The U SPI S acknowledg ed re ceipt of the reque st, and assig ned the matter a

trac king numbe r, F OIA No. 2005-F PI S-00020. Id. , Ex . B ( J anuar y 7, 2005 letter from L . Fr eema

n, Information Disclosure Tec hnician, Of fice of Counsel, USPI S). Staff conducte d “an e lectronic rec ord sea rch . . . of . . . I SI I S[ ,]” which yielded two files: “a n open
case 0583-1407269-ECMT(1) in the [US PI S] Pitt sburg h Division[ ,] and a closed c ase[,] 0472- 1163144-F C(2).” B axter Dec l. ¶ 5. USPI S staff obtained f rom the Procur ement and Administrative Service Center in B ala Cy nwyd, Pennsylvania, a photoc opy of the orig inal case file for closed Case No. 0472-1163144-F C(2). Id . ¶ 9. F rom this closed ca se file, the U SPI S rele ased 99 pa g es of r edac ted re cords on Apr il 15, 2005. Id. ¶ 9. c. Reque st No. 2005-FPI S-00180 In his J uly

11, 2005 FOIA re quest, plaintiff soug ht “eve ry rec ord that [the USPI S has] i n
ever y databa se” pe rtainingto the following corpor ate e ntities and individuals: VC D Street, Intelli-Soft, Matt Anderson, Claudio L opez, Global Business Sy stem, GHS Sy stems, Microsharp, ebay @meetyourprice .com, meetyourprice .com, ADW I nternational, I nc., Da n Wash, and Rob Morg an. Katz Decl., Ex . M (FO I A/PA Request) at 1. The USPI S acknowledg ed re ceipt of the reque st, and assig ned the matter a tra ckingnumber, F OI A No. 2005-F PI S-00180. Id. , Ex . N (August 5, 2005 letter from T.A . Warner, I nformation Disclosure Tec hnician, Of fice of Counsel, USPI S) at 1. Staff interpr eted the r equest a s one for “all data base r ecor ds . . . reg ardingVCD STREET, I ntelli-Soft, Global Business Sy stem, GHS Sy stems, Microsharp, A DW I nternational, Inc., and f

our individuals.” B axter Dec l. ¶ 11. An ele ctronic se arc h of I SI I S for re cords y ielded one open c ase, N o. 0583-1407269-ECMT(1)
. Id . ¶ 12.
6d. Plaintiff’s Challeng e to the USPI S’ Searc hes

Plaintiff contends that the USPI S did not conduct adequate sea rche s for re cords responsive to his re quests beca use the a g ency

“only sear ched c erta in database s[,] ” notwithstanding his re quest that “a ll database s . . . be sea rche d.” Pl.’s Reply

to Defs. United States Postal I nvestig ation Serv. and F ed. B urea u of Prisons Mot. for Summ. J . and Pl.’s Mot. for Summ. J . (“Pl.’s Opp’n a nd Cross-Mot. for Summ. J .”) a t 3. “The [C ]ourt applies a ‘re asonable ness’ test to deter mine the ‘a dequac y ’ of a

sear ch methodology [.] ” Campbell v. United States De p’t of Justice , 164 F.3d 20, 27 ( D.C. Cir. 1998) (quoting W

eisberg , 705 F.2d at 1351). Althoug h an ag ency need not se arc h ever

y rec ord sy stem, see O glesby v . United States Dep’ t of the Army , 920 F.2d 57, 68 ( D.C. Cir. 1990), an “a g ency cannot limit its sear ch to only one re cord sy stem if there are others that ar e likely to turn up the information re quested.” Id . I n this case, the U SPI S, through its supporting decla rations, explains the manner

by which the se arc hes we re c onducted, a nd sug g ests the sea

rch te rms used. Howeve r, in light of pla intiff’s explicit request that the USPI S’ sear ches not be limit ed to criminal files, the a g ency does not explain why

plaintiff’s re quests for infor mation about himself
are presumed to implicate inve stigative files maintained in the I SI I S. Moreover , the USPI S does not expl ain suffic iently

its int erpr etations of plaintiff’ s FOIA re quests. Wit h respe ct to Request No. 2005-F PI S-00020, the USPI S does not ex plain a rationale for “ routinely interpre t[ ing]” a reque st such as plaintiff’s f or information about himself and spec ified cor porate entities as one from “a n individual seekingrec ords maintained in the Inspection Service Investig ative F ile Sy stem.” B axter Dec l. ¶ 5. Nor doe s the USPI S ex plain its int erpr etation of Reque st No. 2005- FPI S-00180 to include VCD STREET, I ntelli-Soft, Global Business Sy stem, GHS Sy stems,
7Microshar p, ADW I nternational, I nc., and f our individuals, id. ¶ 11, while e x cluding ebay @meetyourprice .com and mee tyourprice .com. The U SPI S, then, does not demonstrate tha t it has sear ched the files or sy stems of rec ords most likely to contain re cords r esponsive to plaintiff’s F OIA re quests.

2. The USPI S Does Not J ustify I ts Decisions to Wi thhold Records Unde r Ex emptions 2, 3, 5, and 6, 7(A) , 7(C), 7(D) , and 7(E) Under the FO I A, an a g ency

may withhold documents responsive to a F OIA re quest only if they fall within one of nine e numerated statutory exemptions
. See5 U.S.C. § 552(b). An ag ency must demonstrate that “e ach doc ument that falls within the class re quested e ither has been pr oduced, is unidentifiable , or is wholly [or partially ] ex empt from the [FOIA’s] inspection require ments.” Goland v. Cent. Intelligenc e Age ncy , 607 F.2d 339, 352 ( D.C. Cir. 1978); see also Students Against Genocide v. D ep’t of State , 257 F.3d 828, 833 ( D.C. Cir. 2001). “[W ]hen an ag ency seeks to withhold information, it must provide a re latively detailed justification, specific ally

identifying the rea sons why a par ticular e x emption is relevant a nd corr elatingthose claims with the particula

r par t of a withheld doc ument to which they apply .” Morley v . Cent. IntelligenceAgenc

y , 508 F.3d 1108, 1122 ( D.C. Cir. 2007) (quoting King v. United States Dep’ t of Justice , 830 F.2d 210, 219 ( D.C. Cir. 1987)) (inter nal quotation marks omitted). F or example, “[b] arr en asse rtions that an exempting statute ha s been me t cannot suff ice to esta blish that fact.” Founding Church of Scientology of W ashington, D.C., Inc. v. Nat’l Sec . Agenc y , 610 F.2d 824, 831 (D.C. Cir. 1979). Nor c an an a g ency meet its obligation sim ply by quoting the statutory lang uag e of a

n exemption. See, e .g., Army Times Pub. Co. v. D ep’t of the Air Force , 998 F.2d 1067, 1070 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (r emar king that affidavits “[p] arr oting the c ase la w” we re

8insufficient); Voinche v . Fed. Bure au of Inve stigati on , 412 F. Supp. 2d 60, 69 (D.D .C. 2006) (conc luding that the F BI

did not just ify

its decision to withhold i nformation under Ex emption 7(E) where the dec laration “mere ly quote[d] the statutory

languag e of Exemption (E)”) ; Scott v. Cent. IntelligenceAgenc

y , 916 F. Supp. 42, 48 (D.D .C. 1996) (findinga dec laration inadequate beca use it failed to provide the date of the documents, the numbe r of doc uments withheld, and the nature and ty

pe of material c ontained in the docume nts). a. Exemptions 2, 3, 5, 6 , 7(C), 7(D), and 7( E) In support of its motion, t he USPI S relies on the dec laration of L awr ence Katz to ex plain the ag ency ’s dec ision to di sclose 99 pag es of r ecor ds in part and to withhold 187 pag es of r ecor ds in full under Exemptions 2, 3, 5, 6, 7(C), 7(D), and 7( E). SeeKatz Decl. ¶ ¶ 20-39; see id. , Ex
. (“ Vaughn index”). The Court has re viewed the decla ration and Vaughn index, and finds the ag ency ’s submission i nadequa te. The Vaughn index dut ifully lists each docume nt by

number, offe rs a br ief de scription of the nature of the document (suc h as “inter nal re port” or “ war

rant aff idavit”), indicates whethe r the e ntire docume nt or only a portion of the doc ument is withheld, and sets for

th the exemption or ex emptions on which it relies. The inde x falls short, howeve r, both in its failure to discuss the nature or ty pe of infor

mation withheld and its tendency to restate the statutory

languag e of the exemptions claimed a s its sol e justification for w ithholding the rele vant information. The acc ompanying de clar ation offe rs no additional information to compensate for the Vaughn index’s deficienc ies. For example, the USPI S relies on Exempti on 2 to withhold “personal identific ation information” f

rom Docume nts 3, 25, 37, 38, 50, and 64-67. Katz Decl. ¶ 23. Althoug h the decla rant e x plains that information such as e mploy ees’ telephone numbe rs and e -mail addre sses 9may

fall within the scope of

Ex emption 2, see id. ¶ 22, it is unclear from the de clar ation and
corr esponding Vaughn index entries that information such as tele phone number s and e- mail addre sses is, indeed, the infor mation withheld under the c laimed exemption. Nor does the USPI S’ submissi on establish that the withholding of information under

Ex emption 2 otherwise is permissible under the preva iling law. In another

example, the USPI S withholds Document 49, de scribed a s a wa rra nt affidavit, in its entirety

under Exemption 3 in conjunction with Rule 6(e ) of the F eder al Rules of Criminal Procedur e, which r egulates the disclosure of matters be fore a g rand jury . Katz Decl. ¶ 26; Vaughn index at 20 (Doc. No. 49). I n this Ci rcuit, the grand jury exception is li mited to material which, if disclosed, w ould “tend to re veal some se cre t aspec t of the g rand jury ’s investig ation, such . . . as the ide ntities of witnesses or jurors, the substance of testimony , the strategy

or direc tion of the investigation, the deliberations or questions of jurors, and the like.” Senate of Puerto Rico v . United States Dep’ t of Justice , 823 F.2d 574, 582 ( D.C. Cir. 1987). The phra se “g rand jury” does not a

ppear in the Vaughn index ex planation, and the de clar ation does not state expressly that this warra

nt affida vit qualifies as g rand jury materia l within the scope of Ex emption 3. A third example is the USPI S’ expl anation for withholding Doc ument Nos. 5, 9, 29-31, 33-36, 56, 58-59, 73- 74 and 83 under Ex emption 5. The dec lara nt states that these doc uments “conta in information related to the deliber ative proc ess of the U SPI S in it s consideration of possible criminal ac tions ag ainst [pl aintiff] or are documents protec ted by the attorne y

client privileg e.” K atz Decl. ¶ 28. With respec t to documents withheld under the de liberative pr ocess privileg e, neither

the dec laration nor the corr esponding Vaughn index entries indicates “what
10deliberative proce ss is invol ved, and the role played by the documents at issue in the course of that proce ss.” Hegge

stad v. United States Dep’ t of Justice , 182 F. Supp. 2d 1, 7 (D.D .C. 2000) (quoting Coastal St ates Gas Corp. v. Dep’ t of Energy , 617 F.2d 854, 868 ( D.C. Cir. 1980)). The USPI S is no m ore suc cessf ul in establishing that any of these r ecor ds, including the draf t pleadingwithheld in its entirety , see Vaughn index at 3 (Doc. No. 5), a re materials pre pare d by an attorne y

in anticipation of litigation, see H ickman v . Taylor , 329 U.S. 495 (1947), or c ontain the “menta l impressions, conclusions, opinions or lega l theories of a n attorney .” F E D . R. C I V . P. 26(b)( 3). The de ficienc ies of the USPI S’ submissi ons are not limi ted to these thre e examples, as its purported justification for w ithholding information under Ex emptions 6 and 7 offe rs little more than a

repe tition of the statutory languag e. b. Ex emption 7(A) Ex emption 7(A) pr otects law e nforc ement re cords “ to the extent that production of . . .
rec ords or infor

mation [ ] could reasona

bly be expected to inter fer e with enf orce ment proce eding s.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7) (A). “ The princ ipal purpose of Ex emption 7(A) is to preve nt disclosures which mig ht premature ly reve al the g overnme nt’s case s in court, its evidence and strateg ies, or the nature, scope , direc tion, and focus of its investigations, and ther eby enable suspects to establish defe nses or fr audulent alibis or to destroy or alter evidenc e.” Maydak

v. United States Dep’ t of Justice , 218 F.3d 760, 762 ( D.C. Cir. 2000) (citing Nat’l Labor Relations Bd. v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co. , 437 U.S. 214, 241-42 (1978)) , cert. de nied , 533 U.S. 950 (2001). An a g ency

“must show, by

more than [a] conclusory statement, how the pa

rticular kinds of investig atory

rec ords re quested would interf ere with a pendingenfor ceme nt proce eding .” Campbell v. De

p’t of Health and Human Se rvs. , 682 F.2d 256, 259 ( D.C. Cir. 1982). “[T] he
11g overnme nt need not justify its withhol dings doc ument-by -docume nt; it m ay instead do so cate g ory -of- document by cate g ory -of- document.” Crooker v. Bure au of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms , 789 F.2d 64, 67 ( D.C. Cir. 1986). Acc ording ly , the ag ency must define its cate g ories functionally , deter

mine, document-by -docume nt, the cate g ory into which eac h document fa lls, and explain “how the r elea se of e ach c ateg ory would interfe re w ith enforc ement proc eeding s.” Bev is v. Dep’ t of State , 801 F.2d 1386, 1389- 90 (D.C. Cir. 1986). The USPI S withholds under Exemption 7(A) all re cords pe rtaining to open Case No. 0583-1407269-ECMT(1) . Katz Decl. ¶ ¶ 7, 15; Bax ter De cl. ¶¶ 6- 8. The de clar ants offe r no justification for this decision beyond two conclusory statements: that these “ investigatory rec ords [were] compiled for la

w enf orce ment purpose[s,] ” and that their rele ase “ could re asonably be expected to interfe re w ith enforc ement proc eeding s.” Ka tz Decl. ¶ 7; see id . ¶ 15. The me re f act that the under lying inve stigation remains open is not a suff icient basis for w ithholding the entire
case file; such a de cision is just ified only on a showingthat the re lease of ea ch categ ory of documents could re asonably be expected to inter fer e with enf orce ment proce eding s. C. The BOP’s Motion for Summary J udgment W

ill Be Denied W

ithout Prejudice “[I ]n keeping with rec ent deve lopments in gove rnment F OIA policy , and in consultation with Depar

tment of J ustice employ ees, [the] BOP re- examined the four . . . withheld documents.” D efs.’ Mem., Ex. A (“Her bin-Smit h Dec l.”) ¶ 8. T he B OP since has r elea sed in its entirety a one- pag e Victim Notification Record, id. ¶¶ 7- 8, and has r elea sed in part “ a one- pag e Notification Report print out from the V ictim Notification Sy stem (VNS) whic h allows fede ral ag encie s to share vic tim information (the ‘Notification Report’)[,] ” and a two-pag e letter

from the B OP “conc erningvictim-witness proce dures whic h includes sensitive victim information (the
12‘letter’ ),” id. ¶ 7, af ter having r edac ted information under Ex emptions 7(C) and 7(F ). Id. ¶¶9- 12; see id. , Ex . 4. Ex emption 7 protects fr om disclosure “r ecor ds or information compiled f or law enfor ceme nt purposes,” but only to the extent that dis closure of such re cords would c ause a n
enumer ated ha

rm. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7); see Fe d. Bureau of Inv estigation v. Abramson , 456 U.S. 615, 622 (1982). In order to withhold materials proper ly under Exemption 7, an ag ency must establish that the re cords at issue were compiled for la w enf orce ment purposes, a

nd that the materia l satisfies the re quirements of one of the subpar ts of Ex emption 7. See Pratt v. W ebster , 673 F.2d 408, 413 ( D.C. Cir. 1982). As plaintiff notes in his opposition, seePl.’s Opp’n and Cross-Mot. for Summ. J . at 1, the BO P’s supporting de clar ation does not addre ss the threshold re quirement of E x emption 7. Rather, the a g ency

appea rs to rely solely on its status as a law enf

orce ment ag ency

as the pre mise from which the Court should conclude that a ny rec ord it maintains was compiled for law enfor ceme nt purposes. Absent a showing that the re levant re cords we re c ompiled for law enfor ceme nt purposes, the B OP cannot justify its decisions to withhol d the names of third parties, the disc losure of which “c ould rea sonably be expected to c onstitut e an unw arr anted invasion of per sonal privac y ,” 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(7) (C), or whic h “could r easona bly be expected to endang er the life or phy sical saf ety of any individual.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)( F) . Moreove r, with respec t to the BOP’s re liance on E x emption 7(F) , its supporting dec laration does not ex plain “whe ther ther e is some nexus between disclosure and possible har m” to such third par

ties. Linn v. United States De

p’t of Justice , No. 92-1406, 1995 WL631847, at *8 (D.D .C. Aug . 22, 1995).

13D. Plaintiff ’s Motion for Summary J udgment W

ill Be Denied W

ithout Prejudice Plaintiff moves for summary judgme nt arguing that he is entitled to the relea se of a ll the
rec ords re quested fr om the USPI S and the B OP, and he a dvance s three nove l arg uments in support of his motion. First, he dec lare s “that he is a L akota Sioux Native Ame rica n Indian of a Fe dera lly rec og nized tribe” to whom the F OI A and the Priva cy Act do not apply . Pl.’s Opp’n and Cross-Mot. for Summ. J . at 1-2. He further argues that he “ seeks to use [the re quested
rec ords] to challeng e his criminal convic tion,” and the withholding of the re cords violates his rig ht to due proce ss. Id. at 3. L astly , he ar g ues that the withholdingof the re cords violates his First Amendme nt rig ht to the free exercise of his relig ion. Id. at 4. Acc ording to plaintiff, “his relig ion, Thelema, ma

ndates that he acc ess the re cords to purg e all the ne g ative ene rg y from his life in a re ligious ritual.” Id. None of these a rguments is persuasive. Any person, whe ther a

n individual, partnership or c orporate or g overnme nt entity , can make a FOIA re quest. See5 U.S.C. § 551(2) (def ining the te rm “pe rson” f

or purpose s of the FOIA). The FOIA does not conc ern itself w ith the identity of a r equeste r or his intended use of the re quested re cords. See Nat’l Archiv es &Rec ords Admin. v. Favish , 541 U.S. 157, 172 (2004) (“A s a g ener al rule, c itiz ens see king doc uments subject to FOIA disclosure a re not re quired to explain why

they seek the information.”) ; United States Dep’ t of Justice v. Re porters Comm. for Freedom of the Press , 489 U.S. 749, 771 (1989) (statingthat the re quester’ s identity has “no bear ing on the merits of his . . . FOIA re quest”); see also W illis v. U.S. De

p’t of Justice , 581 F. Supp. 2d 57, 76 (D.D.C. 2008) (quoting Reporters Comm. for Free dom of the Press , 489 U.S. at 773) (“ [A] n individual’s personal inter est in challeng ing his c riminal conviction is not a public interest under

FOIA bec ause it ‘r evea ls lit tle or nothing about an a g ency ’s own conduc t.’”). N or
14is the FOIA a mea ns by which plaintiff c an vindicate his constituti onal rig hts. See M cGe hee v

. Casey , 718 F.2d 1137, 1147 ( D.C. Cir. 1983) (“A litigant see king r elea se of g overnme nt information under

FOIA, there fore , relies upon a statutory entitlement – as nar

rowe d by statutory exceptions – and not upon his constitut ional rig ht to free expression.”); see also Mingo v . U.S. Dep’ t of Justice , No. 08-2197, 2009 WL2618129, at *2 (D.D .C. Aug . 24, 2009) (r ejec ting argument that the ag ency

deliberately

withheld exculpatory

information in violation of the Fifth Amendment bec ause the g overnme nt’s constitutional obli g ation under Brady v. M aryland , 373 U.S. 83 (1963), to disclose exculpatory materia l to a defe ndant in a cr iminal procee ding is not coextensive with the ag ency ’s statutory obligations under the F OI A). Ne ither plaintiff’s status a s a Native Americ an nor his intended use of the re quested re cords lea ds inex orably to the conclusion that he is entitled to the re lease in full of all the re cords he has re quested. I I I . CONCL USI ON The pa rties have not met their respe ctive burde ns on summary judgme nt, and,
acc ording ly , the par

ties’ motions will be denie d without prejudice. A n Orde r ac companies this Memorandum Opinion.
Signed: EMMET G. SUL L I VAN United States District J udg e Dated: Marc h 26, 2010

15