I CE has no t y et bee n se rv ed w ith a sum m ons and copy

of the co m

plaint. Asum

m ons has been 1 re is su ed

f or I C E b as ed

o n in fo rm at io n pr ov id ed b y th e pl ai nt if

f. UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA SHA NE L LJAME S, : : Plaintiff, : Civil Action No.: 08-0842 (RMU)

: v. : Re Docume nt Nos.: 13, 15 : DRUG ENF ORCEMENT : ADMI NI STRATI ON e t al

. , : : De fe nd ants . :

M EM OR

AN DU M OR

DE R G R A N TI N G TH E D RUG E N FORC EM ENT A GE NCY ’ S M OT I ON F OR S UM M ARY J UDGMENT AND

D ENY I N G TH E P LA INT IF F ’ S M OT I ON F OR A N I N C AM ERA I NS P E CT I ON I. IN TR OD UC TIO N Plaintiff Shanell J ames, a fede ral prisone r, brought this action pro se under the Fr eedom of Information Ac t (“F OIA”) , 5 U.S.C. § 552, and the Privacy Act, id. § 552a, ag ainst the Drug Enforc ement Administration (“the DEA” or “the defe ndant”) , a compone nt of the United States Depa rtment of Just ice ( “DOJ”), and the U.S. I mmigration and Customs Enforc ement (“ I CE”), a component of the Depa

rtment of Homela

nd Security
. The de fenda nt now moves for summar y 1 judgme nt. The plaintiff opposes the motion. Bec ause the rec ord establishes that ther e ar e no materia l issues in ge nuine dispute with respe ct to the def endant’ s compliance with the require ments of the F OIA and the Priva cy Act, the c ourt g rants the de fenda nt’s motion for summary judgme nt. In addition, the court de nies the plaintiff’s motion for a n in c am e ra ins pe c tio n o f t

he re qu e ste d d oc ume nts .Well into the litig ation ag ainst C ustom s an d B order Protectio n, anothe r com pone nt of the 2 Dep artm ent o f H om eland Security , th e plaintiff attem pted to am end his co m

plaint to inclu de th e defend ants in

this action. H is m otion to am end was denied , b ut he w as info rm ed th at he was “free .
. . to file n ew actions ag ainst th e D EAand I CE .” Jam es v. C

ustom s & Bo rder Prot. , 549 F. Sup p. 2d 1, 13 (D. D. C. 20 08). This a ction follow ed. 2 II. F ACTUAL & P ROCEDURAL BACK GR OUND On May 25 , 2 00 3, a

U. S. Cu sto ms Se rv ic e a g e nt a rr e ste d th e pla int if

f f or atte mpt ingto smugg le appr ox imately

2.4 pounds of her oin pellets into the country
. See Com pl. , E x. 5 at 2; see also James v . Customs & Border Prot., 549 F. Supp. 2d 1, 5 (D.D .C. 2008). The plaintiff ha d 2
arr ived in Miami, Florida via Cura cao w ith the drug s conce aled inside his body
. See id. The incident re sulted in the plaintiff’s convic tion pursuant to a plea a g ree ment, see Orde r, United States v. Jam es, Cr imi na l Ca se No . 0 3- 20 45 2 ( S.D . F la . O c t. 2 1, 20 03 ), and he wa s se nte nc e d to fourtee n y ear s in prison followed by five year s of supervise d rele ase, see J udg ment, United States
v . J am es (Jan. 27, 2004). Followinghis conviction, the plaintiff soug ht rec ords re lated to his criminal investig ation
and pr os e c uti on , in c lud inga

“ L a bo rator y An a ly sis Re po rt ” of

the he ro in p e lle ts s e ize d f ro m hi s bo dy . Co mpl . ¶

¶ 3 -5 , 1 2 & Ex. 5 . T ow ard that e nd , h e dir e c te d a

F OIA r e qu e st t o th e DO J in November

2004. See Def

.’s Mot. for Summ. J ., Dec l. of L eila I . Wassom (“Wassom Decl.”) ¶ 6 & E x . A. The D OJ forwa rded the reque st to the defenda nt, the Fe dera l Bure au of I nvestig ation (“ F B I ” ) a nd the Exe c uti ve Of

fi c e fo r Unit e d St ate s A tto rn e y s ( “ EO USA ” ). Was so m D e c l. ¶¶ 7- 9 & E x . F. The plaintiff also communicated direc tly with the defe ndant re g ardinghis request. Id. The de fenda

nt determined that the rec ords most likely to be re sponsive to the plaintiff’s reque st would be found in the def endant’ s Investig ative ReportingFilingSy stem (“I RFS”), a nd that lab ana ly sis recor ds were most li kely to be found in the de fenda nt’s Func tional File Sy stem3

File No. 901 ( “L aboratory Case F iles”). Id. ¶¶ 21- 22. The de fenda nt concluded that no other sy stem of files wa s likely to contain re sponsive information. Id. ¶ 2 3. Th e de fe nd ant s e arc he d it s I RFS index by

using the plaintiff’s name , social sec urity number a nd date of birth as sea

rch terms, but did not locate any files containinginformation re lating to the pla intiff. Id. ¶¶ 24- 26. The de fenda

nt could not searc h its L aboratory Case F iles beca

use to do so, it needed to know the file, exhibitor laboratory

number of the druganaly sis sought, and the plaintiff had not provide d that information. Id. ¶ 27. Ac cording ly , the def endant notified the plaintiff that it had found no
rec ords re sponsive to his request. Id. ¶ 11. The pla intiff appea led to the DOJ’s Office of Information and Priva cy

(“O I P”), which a ffirme d the def endant’ s determination that it had no responsive r ecor ds. Id. ¶ 14 & Ex . H. Subsequently , the EOUSA for war ded one pa g e – a c urriculum vitae of one of the defe ndant’s for ensic c hemists – to the defenda nt. Id. ¶ 15. The de fenda nt then notified the plaintiff that it had re ceive d the cur riculum vitae, but that the de fenda nt was withholding the document in full pursuant to F OIA exemptions (b)(6), (b) (7)( C) and (b) (7)( F) , which re late to the privac y or saf ety of third par

ties. Id. ¶¶ 16- 17 & E x . P. I n Dec ember 2007, the plaintiff submitt ed an a

ppeal to the OI P challeng ing the defe ndant’s dec ision to wit hhold the curr iculum vitae. Alongwith his appeal, the pla intiff included new information indicatingthat the DEA’ s Southeast L aboratory

had conduc ted the ana ly sis of the heroin a nd providingthe cor

responding laboratory

number a nd file number. Id. ¶ 1 8 & Ex. L . T he OI P de nie d th e pla int if f’ s a pp e a l, explaining that the cur

riculum vitae wa s unrelate d to his request for a lab a naly sis report. Id. ¶ 20. This lawsuit followed.4

In the cour se of de fendingitself ag ainst this li tigation, the defe ndant conduc ted an additional sear ch base d on the new inf ormation the plaintiff ha d provided in his appea l and forwa rded the plaintiff’s re quest for the lab re port to the Southeast L aboratory . Id. ¶¶ 29- 30. The
sear ch yielded seve nteen pa g es of r esponsive re cords. Those rec ords wer e re lease d to the defe ndant, but the names of DEA labor atory

personne l and I CE Special Ag ents wer e re dacte d from the doc uments pursuant to FO IA exemptions (b)(7)(C) a nd (b)( 7)(F ). Id. ¶¶ 30- 31 & Ex s. O, P. The de fenda

nt has filed a motion for summar y judgme nt, supported by

an ag ency decla ration ave rringthat it has sear ched f or re sponsive rec ords in the only two sy stems of files likely to contain information re sponsive to the plaintiff’s re quests, and that portions of the responsive doc uments were proper ly withheld under F OIA exemptions (b)(6), (b) (7)( C) and (b)( 7)(F ). The pla intiff has filed a n opposition t o the motion, contendingthat the cited exemptions are “in er

ror.” Pl.’s Opp’n at 4-5.

III . A NA LY SIS A. Le ga l St anda r d forSum m ar y J udgm e ntin a F OIACa se Under Fe dera l Rule of Civil Procedur e 56, a motion for summar y judgme nt must be g ra nte d if the ple a din g s and

e vid e nc e on

fi le sh owthat th e re is n o g e nu ine iss ue of mate ri a l f

a c t, and that the movingparty is entitled to judgment as a matter of la

w. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986). In consideringwhether there is a triable issue of

fac t, a cour

t must draw all re asonable infere nces in fa vor of the non- moving pa rty . Id. at 25 5. Th e pa

rt y opposing a

motion for summary

judgme nt, however , “may not rest upon the mer e alleg ations or5

denials of his plea ding, but . . . must set forth spe cific f acts showingthat there is a g enuine issue for tria l,” id. at 248, that would per mit a rea sonable jury

to find in his favor, Laningham v. U.S. Navy , 81 3 F .2 d 1 23 6, 12 41 (D .C. Cir . 1 98 7) . T he no n- mov ingpa rt y mus t do mor e tha

n s imp ly “show that ther e is some metaphy sical doubt as to the mater ial fac ts.” Ma tsu sh ita Ele c . I nd us . Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). More over, “ any fac tual asser

tions in t he movant’s af

fidavits will be acc epted a s beingtrue unless [the opposing pa rty ] subm its his own aff idavits or other doc umentary evidenc e contr adictingthe asser tion.” Ne al v . Ke lly , 963 F.2d 4 5 3 , 4 5 6 (D
. C
. C i r. 1 9 9 2 ) ( qu o t i n g Lewis v. Faulkner , 689 F.2d 100, 102 ( 7th Cir. 1982)). In a F OIA suit, an ag ency is entitled to summ ary

judgme nt once it demonstrate s that no
mate ri a l f a c ts a re in d isp ute and

that it c on du c te d a

se arc h o f r e c or ds in i ts c us tod y or c ontr ol, Kis singe r v . R e

po rte rs C om m. for Fr e e do m o

f th e Pr ess , 445 U.S. 136, 150-51 (1980), that was
rea sonably

calc ulated to uncove r all re levant information, W eisberg v. D ep’t of Justice , 745 F.2d 1476, 1485 (D.C. Cir. 1984), which e ither has be en re lease d to the reque stor or is exempt from disclosure, Stu de nts Ag

ain st G e no c idev . D e

p’ t of Sta te , 257 F.3d 828, 833 ( D.C. Cir. 2001). To show that its searc h “us[ed] m ethods which c an be r easona bly expected to produc e the information re quested,” Oglesby v . U.S. Dep’ t of the Army , 92 0 F .2 d 5 7, 68 (D .C. Cir . 1 99 0) ; see also Campbell v. U.S. Dep’ t of Justice , 1 64 F .3 d 2 0, 27 (D .C. Cir . 1 99 8) , th e a g e nc y may su bmi t aff idavits or decla

rations that explain in reasonable detail and in a nonc onclusory fashion the scope a nd method of the sea

rch, Perry v . Block, 684 F.2d 121, 126 ( D.C. Cir. 1982). In 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. A sea rch ne ed not be e x haustive, Miller v. U.S. De p’ t of Sta te , 779 F.2d 1378, 1383 ( 8th Cir. 1985), and the a dequac y of a se arc h is notI n ad dition, w ith resp ect to one docum ent, the ag ency inv ok es F OI A exem

ption (b)(6). 3 6 deter mined by its results, but by

the method of the se arc h itself, W eisberg, 745 F.2d at 1485. An ag ency ’s fa ilure to find a pa rticular doc ument does not nec essar ily indicate that its sear ch wa s inadequate. W

ilbur v. CIA , 35 5 F .3 d 6 75 , 6 78 (D .C. Cir . 2 00 4) ; Nation Magazine, W ash. Bureau v. U.S. Customs Serv. , 71 F.3d 885, 892 n.7 ( D.C. Cir. 1995). An a g e nc y that w ithho lds inf

or matio n r e sp on siv e to t

he pla int if

f’ s r e qu e st mus t ju sti fy

its de c isi on in a c c or da

nc e wi th t he F OIA. 5 U .S. C. § 55 2( a )( 4) (B ); Al-Faye d v. CIA , 254 F.3d 300, 30 5 ( D. C. C ir . 2 00 1) ; Summers v . Dep’ t of Justice , 1 40 F .3 d 1 07 7, 10 80 (D .C. Cir . 1 99 8) ; Mead Data Cent., Inc. v . U.S. Dep’ t of the Air Force , 566 F.2d 242, 260 ( D.C. Cir. 1977). In this case, the de fe nd ant h a s a sse rt e d F OIA e xemp tio ns (b )( 7) (C ) a nd (b )( 7) (F ) f

or e a c h o f i ts nondisclosures. FOIA exemption (b)(7)( C) applies to information “c ompiled for law 3 enfor ceme nt purposes” the disclosure of which “c ould rea sonably be expected to c onstitut e an
un warra nt ed i nv asi onof p ers on al p ri vacy .” 5 U.S .C . § 55 2(b )(7 )(C ). FO IA ex emp ti on(b) (7) (F) also applies to information “c ompiled for law e nforc ement purpose s” the disclosure of which “could r easona

bly be expected to e ndang er the life or phy sical saf ety of any individual.” Id. § 552(b)( 7)(F ). Ther efor e, the de fenda nt must “produce a ffidavits or de clar ations that descr ibe the documents involved a nd justify the non-disclosure in a clea r, spec ific and r easona

bly detailed
manner , and that ar e not controve rted by either c ontrary

evidenc e in the re cord [or] evidence of ag ency bad fa ith.” Voinche v . FBI , 412 F. Supp. 2d 60, 64-65 (D .D.C. 2006) (interna l quotation marks and c itations omi tted). “The se af fidavits or dec larations are a ccor ded a pr esumption of g ood faith, which c annot be r ebutted by purely speculative claims about the e x istence a nd discovera bility of other doc uments.” Id. at 65 (interna l quotation marks omitted). I f “the ag ency7

aff idavits are suf

ficiently detailed to per

mit meaningf

ul reviewand adve rsar ial testing of exemption claims,” in camera revie w of doc uments is not necessar y . Thompson v. Exe cutive Office for U.S. Attorneys , 58 7 F . Su pp . 2 d 2 02 , 2 07 n. 1 ( D. D. C. 2 00 8) (i nte rn a l qu otatio n ma rk s, alterations and citations omitt ed). An in camera revie w is proper ly viewed a s a “se condar

y tool of F OIA enf

orce ment” to be unde rtake n only wher e the c ourt, in its dis cre tion, determines it to be
nece ssary . Ctr. for

Auto Safety v. Env tl. Prot. Agency , 731 F.2d 16, 20- 21 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (interna l quotation marks omitted).

B. T he Co ur t G r ant s t he De fend ant ’s M ot ion forSum m ar y J udgm e nt

1. The Defendan t’s Sear ch was Adequate Th e pla int if

f d oe s n ot c onte st the a de qu a c y of the de fe nd ant’ s se arc h, but th e c ourt wi ll addre ss this i ssue nonethele ss beca use, on a motion for summar y judgme nt, the defe ndant bea rs the initial burden of showingthat its searc h was a dequate
. W e isb e rg , 745 F.2d at 1485. The de fe nd ant c an me e t th is b ur de n b y su pp lying“ re a so na

bly de ta ile d, no nc on c lus or

y a ff ida vit s in g ood faith.” Id. In Steinberg v. U .S. Departme nt of Justice , the cour t held that the FB Isatisfied this burden bec ause it desc ribed “ with particular ity the files sea

rche d, the manner

in which they
wer e sea rche d, and the r esults of the sea rch.” 23 F.3d 548, 552 ( D.C. Cir. 1994). L ike the F BI ’s decla ration in Ste inb e rg , th e W a s s o mD e c l ar at i o nc o nt a i n s a s u f f i c i e n td e g r e e o f

p art i c u l ar i ty . It
e xpla ins wh ic h o f t

he de fe nd ant’ s d ata

ba se s w ou ld b e lik e ly

to c onta in i nf

or matio n r e sp on siv e to the plaintiff’s r equests and how files ar e g ener ally

retrie ved fr om those databa ses. SeeWassom Dec l. ¶¶ 21-24. In addition, it specifically details the off

ices, dates, methods, and re sults of the
sear ches c onducted on the pla intiff’s beha lf. Id. ¶¶ 25 -3 1. In a dd iti on

to b e ingre a so na

bly detailed, the Wassom Dec laration appear s to have be en made in good f aith; the plaintiff does not8

alleg e other

wise. See ge nerally Compl.; Pl.’s Opp’n. Concluding that the defe ndant conduc ted an ade quate se arc h for doc uments responsive to the plaintiff’ s reque st, the court now turns to the pla int if f’ s p ri nc ipa l argume nts .

2. The Defendan t’s Nondisclosures Were P roper T h e W as s o mDe cl ar at i o n , an d i t s ac co mp an yi n g Vaughn index, describes the infor mation withheld in a clea

r, spec ific and r easona

bly detailed manne r, and justifies the non- disclosures by descr ibing the g ener al content of the undisclosed information and citing the applicable statutory provisions. See Wassom Decl., Ex. P . Specifica lly , the dec laration ex plains that the curr iculum vitae of the fore nsic che mist was withheld based on third-pa rty privac y interests, see Wassom De c l. ¶ ¶ 1 6- 17 , a nd that th e do c ume nts fr om t he Southe a st L a

bo rator y we re re le a se d w ithon ly names of la

w enf orce ment personne l reda cted, id. ¶¶ 30 -3 1 & Exs. O, P. The plaintiff oppose s the defe ndant’s invocation of the exemptions. See ge ne ra lly Pl.’s Opp’n. The g ist of the plaintiff’s opposition is (i) that the exemptions cited do not have any thing to do with the information he see ks in the laborator y analy sis report, see id. , a nd (i i) that hi s persona l interest in obtaining e vidence that might invalidate his drugconviction or re duce the leng th of his sentence outweig hs the privac y interests protec ted by

the FO IA, see id. at 7-9 (c iting constitutional rights and the Fe dera l Rules of Evidence , and alludingto the exis tence of exculpatory

materia l). Th e pla int if

f’ s o pp os iti on

to t he mot ion

fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt a

pp e ars to r e st, at le a st i n part, on his belief

that a more complete lab a naly sis report exists and is being withheld. See ge ne ra lly id. Th e pla int if f n owha s tw o c op ie s o f a do c ume nt h e re fe rs to a s a “ la b a na ly sis repor t.” See Compl., Ex . 5; Wassom Decl., Ex . P at 2. The docume nt is DEA For m-7 entitled9

“Report of

DrugProperty

Collected, Purcha sed, or Seized,” dated May 28, 2003, and it contains
an a na ly sis of the he ro in p e lle ts s e ize d f ro m th e pla int if

f. Com pl. , E x. 5. Th e pla int if

f f ir st
rec eived a

copy of DEA F orm-7 fr om his court-appointed de fense counsel in September 2003. The fir st copy

contains no information in Block 25, which is ca ptioned “Ana ly sis Sum mary and Remarks.” See id. In connec tion with his FOIA re quest, the plaintiff re fer red to B lock 25 of DEA F orm-7, alleg ing that “[t] he information on this form is in-complete [sic]. This i s the
rec ord soug ht pursuant to the FO IA in which this section discloses the Ana ly sis of the ref ere nced seizure.” Wassom Dec l., Ex . Lat 6. In J une 2008, the plaintiff obta ined a se cond copy of DEA For m-7 as one of

the seve nteen pa g es the de fenda nt rec eived f

rom the Southeast L aboratory and
re le a se d to the pla int if

f i n th e c ours e of

the ins tant s uit . T he se c on d c op y is i de nti c a l to the fi rs t, and demonstrates that the def endant did not re dact a

ny information from B lock 25. See id. (desc ribingthe document a s the DEA F orm-7 date d May 28, 2003, and notingthat information
was re dacte d from B locks 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 34 and 37 only ). None theless, the plaintiff appea rs to still believe that there is a c opy of DEA F orm-7 that conta ins information in Block 25. Se e ge ne ra lly

Pl.’s Opp’n. Thus, the plaintiff’s pr imary focus is on the labor atory analy sis he believes should be summarized on DEA F orm-7. See ge nerally Compl.; Pl.’s Opp’n. I t appea rs, howeve r, that the pla int if f h a s mi sta

ke n th e wi thh e ld c ur

ri c ulum vi ta e fo r t

he la b r e po rt he se e ks , ju st a s h e did

in his administrative appea l of the dec ision not t o disclose the cur riculum vitae. See Wassom Decl., Ex. L ; Pl. ’s Op p’ n at 4 ( statin gthat “ [t]he re c or d s ou g ht i s n ot ‘ pe rs onne l or me dic a l r e c or ds ’ that belongto any

of the fe dera l employ ees . . . . [Rather, the] rec ord soug ht [ is the] L aboratory Analy sis Report”) (punc tuation altere d). The c ourt does not doubt the sincer ity of the plaintiff’ s10

persistent alleg ations. Neve rtheless, while the rec ord sought is a lab ana ly sis report, the f act
rema ins that the rec ord with he ld is a c ur ri c ulum vi ta e . G ive n th at th e c ur ri c ulum vi ta e is a personne l rec ord and is not re levant to the information the plaintiff seeks, the c ourt conc ludes that the def

endant pr operly

withheld this document. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6) (exempting fr om dis c los ur e “ pe rs onne l . . . f ile s and sim ila r f ile s th e dis c los ur e of

wh ic h w ou ld c on sti tut e a c le arl y
unwa rr ante d inva sio n o f p e rs on a l pr iva c y” ); Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v. Norton , 309 F.3d 26 , 3 2 ( D. C. C ir . 2 00 2) (d ir e c tin gc ourt s to we ig h th e pr iva c y int e re st i n n on dis c los ur e a g a ins t the bene fits of disclosure)
. Ne xt, in an a rgume nt t hat a pp lie s e qu a lly

to t he c ur ri c ulum vi ta e that w a s w ithhe ld i n f ull and the na

mes of DEAlaboratory

personne l and I CE Special Ag ents that wer e re dacte d from the do c ume nts pr od

uc e d b y the Southe a st L a

bo rator y , th e pla int if

f a rgue s th at hi s p e rs on a l inte re st i n “cha ng ing the outcome of his cr iminal case sig nificantly” outweighs any privac y interest that the third parties may

have in the w ithheld information. Pl.’s Opp’n at 6 (punc tuation altere d). The court c oncludes, howe ver, that the plaintiff’s ar gument is not supported by the law. The F OIA exempts the production of law e nforc ement re cords to the e x tent that such production “c ould rea sonably be expected to c onstitut e an unw arr anted invasion of pe rsonal pr iva c y .” 5 U .S. C. § 55 2( b) (7 )( C) . T he Cir c uit ha s h e ld t

hat th e “ pr iva c y

int e re st at st ake is substantial” in case s involving the disclosure of information identifying individuals who have taken pa rt in law enf

orce ment activities. SafeCard Servs., Inc . v. Sec . &Exc h. Comm’n , 926 F .2 d 1 19 7, 12 05 (D .C. Cir . 1 99 1) ; see also Bast v. U.S. D ep’t of Justice , 665 F.2d 1251, 1254 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (holdingthat, in light of the stig ma potentially associate d with law enf

orce ment investigations, ex emption (b)(7) (C) af fords broa d privac y

rig hts to suspects, witnesses andThe plaintiff’s claim that he a lready

k now s the nam es inv olv ed, see Pl.’s Opp ’n at 4- 5, 9, does 4 not a lter the court’s analy sis. 11 investigators). Indeed, a

n ag ency may resor t to a specia l ty

pe of non- response “if c onfirmingor de nyingthe e xiste nc e of

the re c or ds wo uld

a sso c iate the ind ivi du a l na me d in the re qu e st w ith criminal ac tivity .” Nation Magazine , 71 F.3d at 893. Gi ve n th e signif

ic a nt i nd ivi du a l pr iva c y

int e re st at is su e , d isc los ur e of mate ri a l th at c ou ld
c on sti tut e an inva sio n o f p ri va c y is w arr ante d o nly

wh e n th e ind ivi du a l’ s p ri va c y int e re st i s outweig hed by

the public’s intere st in disclosure. U.S. Dep’ t of Justice v. Re porters Comm. for Fr e e do m o

f th e Pr ess, 48 9 U .S. 74 9, 77 6 ( 19 89 ) ( re qu ir ingthe c ourt to “ ba lanc e the pu

bli c interest in disclosure a g ainst the interest Cong ress intende d [ex emption (b)(7) (C)] to protect”); Bec k v. D ep’t of Justice

, 9 9 7 F
. 2 d

1 4 8 9 , 1 4 9 1 ( D
. C
. C i r . 1 9 9 3 )
. M o r e s p e c i f i c a l l y, wh e re the re is a pr iva c y int e re st pr ote c te d by Exe mpt ion 7( C) and the pu bli c int e re st be inga sse rt e d is to sh owthat r e sp on sib le of fi c ia ls a c te d n e g lig e ntl y

or oth e rw ise improperly

in the perf

ormanc e of the ir duties, the reque ster must establish more than a bar e s uspicion in order to obtain disclosure . Rather, the r equeste r must produce evidenc e tha t would war rant a belief by

a re asonable person that the a lleg ed Gover nment impropriety

might have occur

red. Nat’l Archives &Rec ords Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157, 174 (2004). The plaintiff doe s not contend, and the court doe s not conclude, that his goa l of altering the outcome of

his prosecution constitutes a public intere st. Pl .’s Opp’n at 7 (emphasizing the plaintiff’s “greater pe rsonal constitutional rig ht to the . . . material soug ht pursuant to FOIA”)
. Nor ha s the plaintiff made the showingof off icial misconduct re quired to over come the substantial privacy

interests that exemption (b)(7)( C) protec ts. In sum, the plaintiff has not 4 sh own th at th e re is anypublic interest at stake , let alone a public interest that outweighs theThe d ef en dant a ss erts th at

m or e th an

o ne F O I A e xe m

pt io n just if

ie s it s no nd is cl os ur es in

th is 5 case. See generally D ef
. ’s Mo t. B ec au se th e co urt c on cl ud es th at th e no nd is cl os ur es w er e prope r un der e xem

ption (b)(7)(C ), th e co urt ne ed n ot ad dress the o ther ex em ptions the d efendant has cited in

its m otion. 12 individual privacy

interests protec ted by

the FO IA. See B eck

, 997 F.2d at 1491. The cour t there fore conclude s that, under the F OIA, the def endant’ s nondisclosures we re justified. 5 3. The Co ur t D e nie s t he P lai nt iff’s M ot ion foran In Ca mera Insp ect ion F ina lly , th e pla int if

f s e e ks in camera revie w of the r equeste d materia ls. I n Allen v. CIA , the Circuit set out sever al cr iteria for deter mining the ne ed for

an in camera r e v i e wi nF O IA
case s. 636 F.2d 1287, 1293 (D .C. Cir. 1980), abrogated on other grounds by Founding Church of S c ie nto log yof W as h. , D .C. , I

nc . v . S mi th , 721 F.2d 828 ( D.C. Cir. 1983). These c riteria do not limitthe broa d discretion of the trial courts to dec ide whethe r to conduc t an in c am e ra revie w, but me re ly

c on sti tut e a

lis t of fa c tor s th at tr ia l c ourt s sh ou ld c on sid e r b e fo re e xer c isi ngthe ir discretion. Id. at 1297. They include: (1) judicia l economy ; (2) the c onclusory nature of the ag ency aff idavits; (3) possible bad fa ith on the part of the a g ency ; (4) whe ther the a g ency pr op os e s in camera revie w; (5) disputes conc erningthe content of the document; and ( 6) strong public interest in disclosure. Id. at 1297-99. In acc ordanc e with the pre cedingfac tors, and g iven the re asonably

detailed nature of the Wassom Declar ation, see supra Part I I I .B, the absenc e of any indication of bad f

aith by the def endant, see ge nerally Compl.; Pl.’s Opp’n, and the a bsence of a c ompelling public inter est, see supra Part I I I .B, the court de nies the plaintiff’s r equest for an in camera re vie w o f t

he re qu e ste d mate ri a ls.13 IV . C ON CL USI ON For the fore g oing r easons, the c ourt conc ludes that the plaintiff ha s prese nted no g enuine issue of mater ial fac t with respec t to the defe ndant’s complianc e with the F OIA as to either the
rea sonablene ss of the sea rch or the proprie ty

of withholding the reda cted infor mation. Having satisfied its disclosure oblig ations under the F OIA, the def endant is entitled to summary judgme nt. Be cause this Memorandum Orde r disposes of issues re lated only to the DEA a

nd not to I CE, it is not a final, a

ppeala ble orde r. Ac cording ly , it is t his 28th day of September , 2009, here by ORDERED that th e de fe nd ant’ s mo tio n f or summa ry jud g me nt i s G RA NT ED and the de fe nd ant i s awa

rd e d ju dg me nt a

nd dis mis se d f

ro m th is a c tio n; a

nd it i s F UR THER

OR DE RE D that the plaintiff’s motion for a n in c am e ra inspection is DE NI ED
. SO ORDERED.

RI CARDO M. URBI NA Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge