UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE DI STRI CT OF COLUMBIA

) J ESSE S KI

NNER, ) ) Plaintiff, )

) v. ) Civil Action No. 09-0725 ( PL F) ) UNI TED STATES DEPARTMENT ) OF JUSTI CE, et al. , ) ) Def endants. )

)

OPI NI ON Plaintiff broug ht this action under the F ree dom of Information Ac t (“F OIA”) , 5 U.S.C. § 552, ag ainst the United States Depa rtment of Just ice ( “DOJ”) and f our of its components. The Court ha s resolved the claims reg ardingplaintiff’s F OIA re quests to the Ex ecutive O ffice for United States A ttorney s (“EO USA”) a nd the Fe dera l Bure au of Investig ation (“F BI ”). See Skinner v . U.S. Dep’ t of Justice , 744 F. Supp. 2d 185 (D.D .C. 2010). 1 This matter now is bef

ore the Court on defe ndants’ re newe d motion for summary judgme nt which addr esses thre e outstandingissues reg ardingthe re sponse of the B urea u of Alcohol,

The EOU SA has rele ased 100 pa g es of r ecor ds without charg e to plaintiff, see 1 Def s.’ Renew ed Mot. for Summ. J ., Ex . 1 (L etter to plaintiff f rom Wil liam G. Stewart I I , Assistant Director , Fr eedom of Information & Privacy

Staff, EOU SA, dated January 3, 2011). No g enuine issues of material fa ct ar e in dispute with respe ct to plaintiff’s F OIA re quest to the EOUSA, and de fenda

nts’ rene wed motion for summary judgme nt will be gr anted in this respe ct.Tobac co, F irea rms and Explosi ves (“ BA TFE” ) to plaintiff’s July 3, 2007 FOIA re quest, assig ned No. 08-171. 2

I . BA CKGROUND

In rele vant par

t, plaintiff’s FO IA re quest to the BA TFE r ead: T h i s l et t er serve s as a FOIA reque st

. . . for copies of any and al l rec ords cr eate d and re ceive d by the Bilox i, Mississ ippi Field Off ice fo r the [BATF E] in reg ards to my self – J ESSE SKI NNER. I n addition, this is a reque st for an index of any and all files maintained by the [BATF E] in refer ence to me. Def s.’ Mem. of Points & Authorities. in Supp. of the Mot. to Dismiss I n Part, and Alter natively , for Summ. J . (“D efs.’ First Mem.” ) [Dkt. #18] , Dec l. of Aver ill P . Gra ham (“ Gra

ham Dec l.”), Ex . Q (L etter f

rom plaintiff to BA TFE, B ilox i, Missi ssippi Field Offic e, date d J uly 3, 2007) at 1. The B ATF E rele ased r esponsive re cords to plaintiff on thre e occ asions. Initially , it relea sed 100 pag es of r ecor ds on November 21, 2007 at no cost to plaintiff. Id. , Gra ham Dec l. ¶ 25. Plaintiff was notified at that time “that some of the pa g es re sponsive to his FOIA re quest had be en ref err ed to other a g encie s where they orig inated.” Id. , Gra

ham Dec l. ¶ 25. Twelve pag es of

rec ords wer e re fer

red to the D epar

tment of the Army

(“Army”), id. , Gra

ham Dec l. ¶ 26, and one pag e wa s ref

err ed to the U.S. Customs and I mmigration Services (“ USCI S”), id. , Gra ham Dec l. ¶ 29. On De cembe r 13, 2007, upon re ceipt of a pay ment of fe es asse ssed for the sear ch for a copying of

the re cords, the B ATF E rele ased more documents. Id. , Gra ham Dec l. ¶ 32. L astly , on

Also befor e the Court ar e Plaintiff’s Motion to Renew Plaintiff’s Motion for 2 Def endant DE A to Turn Ove r to Plaintiff the Medica l Records of Cra ig Shows a nd J ohn Bor dag es [Dkt. #61] and Plaintiff’s Motion to Order the Def endant DE A to Revise [I ts] “Va ughn L ist” to the Current Status Information In Their Possess and to Relea se All Information to Plaintiff I mmediately

[Dkt. #62] . Both motions will be denied. 2“re view of a ll the documents for litig ation,” the B ATF E rele ased 34 more pag es of r ecor ds on

October 26, 2009. Id. , Gra

ham Dec l. ¶ 41. A. Disclosure of a Compact Disc Amongthe re cords r esponsive to plaintiff’s F OIA re quest to the BA TFE w as “a CD of photog raphs . . . r efe renc ed on the c over she et re lated to re quest number 08- 171 on Dec ember

13, 2007, but was inadve rtently not relea sed to [plainti ff].” De fs.’ Mem. in Supp. of their Renew ed Mot. for Summ. J . (“D efs.’ Renewe d Mot.”), Ex. 2 (“L abrie Dec l.”) ¶ 4. This 3 “CD conta ined 8 photog raphs of two individuals, one of whom was f emale, a nd both of whom

wer e not furthe r identified.” Def s.’ Renew ed Mot., L abrie Dec l. ¶ 4. I t was believe d that the BA TFE “ intended to withhold the CD in full because [no one] could identify the individuals, but

acc identally

omitted it from the exempti on portion of the cove r shee t.” Id. , L abrie Dec l. ¶ 4. Staff discussed the CD with the assig ned ca se ag ent, and it was de termined “ that one of the se individuals is [ plaintiff].” Id. , L abrie Dec l. ¶ 4. Acc ording ly , the B ATF E has re lease d the photogr aph of pla intiff and the photog raphs of the fe male “w ith her fa cial fe ature s reda cted unde r Ex emption 7(C).” Id. , L abrie Dec l. ¶ 4.

Be cause defe ndants’ prior motion for summar y judgme nt and supporting 3 decla ration did not indicate whe ther the CD ha d been r elea sed, the Court def err ed conside ration of plaintiff’s “ Motion for Production of ATF CD Containing Photogr aphs and A ll Other Photogra ph’s [sic] with Respect to Plaintif[ f]’s Instant Civil Action in Possession of the ATF” [Dkt. #22]

. Skinner v . U.S. Dep’ t of Justice , 744 F. Supp. 2d at 190 n.4. The ag ency since ha s rele ased the CD. Defs.’ Renewe d Mot., L abrie Dec l. ¶ 3. In addition, in response to plaintiff’s reque st “duringthis li tigation . . . [ for] color copie s of 15 photographs of laboratory

exhibi ts consisting of

9 printed pag es . . . which w ere . . . delineate d in [ BA TFE’ s] previously filed Vaughn Index,” the BA TFE r elea sed re dacte d copies of the se photog raphs on Nove mber 8, 2010. Id. , L abrie Dec l. ¶ 5. As is discussed below, the B ATF E properly has re dacte d imag es of the third parties, a

nd plaintiff’s motion will be denied as moot.

3B. Referral to the De partment of the Army On Novembe r 21, 2007, the B ATF E ref err ed 12 pag es of r ecor ds to the Depa rtment of the Ar

my . Def s.’ Fir st Mem., Graha

m Decl. ¶

26. Relevant to this discussion are the documents de scribed a s “[a] copy of a Cer tificate of Release or Discha

rg e fr om Active Duty” and two memora

nda, one “ from the Commander , 86 Ordna nce B attalion to the Commander, US t h Army Armor Cente r and F ort Knox, dated Marc h 8, 1991,” and one “fr om the Commander, Company B, to the Commander , 86 Ordna nce B attalion, dated Ma

rch 6, 1991,” both refe renc ing t h plaintiff’s discha

rg e fr om the Army . Def

s.’ Renew ed Mot., Dec l. of Thom M. J ones (“ J ones Dec l.”) ¶ 3. The Ar

my rele ased the se re cords to plaintiff in par t after reda ctingthe names of 4 third parties unde r Exemption 6. Id. , J ones De cl. ¶ 4. Althoug h plaintiff was a dvised of his rig ht to appea l this determination to the Comm ander , U.S. Army Human Resourc es Command (“H RC”), id. , J ones De cl., Ex. (L etter to plaintiff f rom Kelly

R. Fra ser, Colonel, U.S. Army , Chief of Staff

, U.S. Army

Human Resourc es Command, dated Ma rch 13, 2008) , “HRC rec ords do not indicate that [plaintiff] appealed the pa rtial denial” of his FOI

A re quest. Id. , J ones De cl. ¶ 7. C. Referral to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

On Dec ember

13, 2007, the B ATF E ref err ed a one -pag e docume nt to the U.S. Citi zenship and I mmigration Service (“ USCI S”). De fs.’ F irst Mem., Graha m Decl. ¶ 29; see id. , Gra ham Dec l., Ex . AA (L etter to B .J . Welsh, FOIA Off icer , USCI S, from Suz anne Plac anica , The re maining doc uments were routingand tra nsmitt al forms a

nd copies of 4 corr espondenc e per

taining to the or igina l FOIA re quest, the re fer ral of doc uments from the BA TFE to the Army , and the Ar my ’s re lease of re cords to plaintiff. SeeDef s.’ Renew ed Mot., J ones De cl. ¶ 4. 4Disclosure Spec ialist, BATF E, dated D ece mber 13, 2007). T he docume nt was “a printout of information extracted f

rom a Privac y

Act sy stem of re cords c ommonly ref err ed to as [t] he Enforc ement Communications Sy stem (forme rly , Trea sury Enforc ement Communications Sy stem (TECS)).” D efs.’ Renewe d Mot., Decl. of Jill E. Eg g leston (“Eg g leston Dec l.”) ¶ 5 (empha sis removed). F rom this document, the USCI S redac ted “inter nal computer

codes, a n unpublicized investigation tec hnique, and the na mes and e mploy ee ide ntification numbers of fede ral lawenfor ceme nt office rs” unde r F OIA Exempti ons 2, 7(C), and 7( E). Id. , Eg g leston Dec l. ¶ 7. The USCI S relea sed this document to plaintiff on Dec ember 27, 2007. Id. , Eg g leston Dec l., Ex . C (L etter f

rom T. Diane Cejka, Dire ctor, USCI S, dated Dec ember 27, 2007).

I I . DI SCUS SI ON A. Summary J

udgment in a FOIA Case “F OIA ca ses ty

pically and appr opriately

are decide d on motions for summary judgme nt.” Defende rs of W ildlif e v. U .S. Border Patrol , 623 F. Supp. 2d 83, 87 (D.D .C. 2009). The Court g rants summary judgme nt if the movant shows that there is no ge nuine dispute as to any materia l fac t and is entitled to judgment a s a matter of law. SeeFe d. R. Civ. P . 56(a) . In a FOIA ac tion to compel production of ag ency rec ords, the ag ency

“is entitled to summary judgme nt if no material f acts a re in dispute and if

it demonstrates ‘that e ach doc ument that falls within the class re quested e ither has be en produc ed . . . or is wholly exempt from the [FOIA’s] inspection requir ements.’” Students Against Genocide v . Dep’ t of State , 257 F. 3d 828, 833 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (quoting Goland v. Cent. Intelligenc e Age ncy , 607 F.2d 339, 352 ( D.C. Cir. 1978)). Summary

judgme nt may

be base d solely

on information provided in a n ag ency ’s

5supporting a ffidavits or de clar ations if they are relatively

detailed a

nd when they

descr ibe “the documents and the justifications for nondisclosure w ith reasona bly specific detail, demonstrate that the information withheld log ically 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); see Be ltranena v. Clinton , 770 F. Supp. 2d 175, 182 (D.D .C. 2011).

Plaintiff’s opposition t o defe ndants’ re newe d summary judgme nt motion i s devoted e ntirely

to his quest to obtain from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi exhibi ts from his criminal trial, def endants’ a lleg ed possession of these exhibi ts, and their alleg ed re fusal to disclose them. Ac cordingto plaintiff, his father “we nt to the Courthouse in South Mi ssissippi and wa s allowed to examine the exhibit s and allowe d to take photogr aphs” on two oc casions in Novembe r 2010. Pl.’s Resp. in Opp’n of De f.’s Mot. for Summ. J . (“Pl.’s Opp’n” ) ¶ 17; Pl.’s Aff. in Supp. of Pl.’s Resp. in Opp’n of D efs.’ Mot. for Summ. J . (“Pl.’s Aff

.”) ¶ ¶ 8-9. Amongthese doc uments, plaintiff’s father a lleg edly “discove red . . . incriminatingevidenc e that fur ther prove s that the DOJ used false fr audulent evide nce to convict plaintiff.” Pl.’s Opp’n ¶ 17. Da y s later, a Drug Enforc ement Administration (“D EA”) ag ent alleg edly

“we nt to the District Courthouse in Sout h Mississ ippi and took the trial exhibi ts.” Id. ; Pl.’s Aff. ¶ 12. De fenda nts, plaintiff claims, have “ take[n] pos session of the incriminating evidenc e to pre vent [him ] from further e x posing the m as liars,” a nd deprivinghim of an opportunity

to have a private inve stigator revie w these e x hibits “to further [his] claims of wrong ful ac ts on behalf of DOJ employ ees involved” in the criminal ca se. Id. ¶ 30. Thus, plaintiff asser

ts, “the evide nce e x hibits [ are ] i n the possession of the . . . DEAand this Court has

6the authority to enjoin the ag ency

from withholding a g ency rec ords and to orde r the produc tion of any ag ency rec ords prope rly

withheld from complaina nt.” Pl.’s Opp’n ¶ 22 ( brac kets and internal quotation marks omitted).

“A r equeste r may

challeng e the g overnme nt’s showingby setting out spec ific fac ts showing a

g enuine issue f

or trial,” Brown v. U.S. De p’t of Justice , 742 F. Supp. 2d 126, 129 (D.D.C. 2010) ( citation and interna l quotation marks and bra ckets omitted), but he “ cannot r ebut the g ood faith pre sumption” affor ded to an a g ency ’s supportingdecla rations “through purely speculative claims about the e x istence a nd discovera

bility of other doc uments.” Id. (citations omitted). Nor do plaintiff’ s speculative a nd conclusory

asser tions amount to “contradictor y evidenc e in the re cord or

by evidenc e of a g ency

bad fa ith.” Halperin v. Cent. Inte lligence Agenc y , 629 F.2d 144, 148 ( D.C. Cir. 1980); see J udicial W atch, Inc . v. Bd. of Gov ernors of the Fed. Re serveSys. , 773 F. Supp. 2d 57, 60 (D.D .C. 2011).

B. Exe mptions 1. Ex emption 2 Ex emption 2 protects fr om disclosure mater ial that is “related solely to the internal pe rsonnel rule s and pra ctices of an ag ency .” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(2) . Fr om a one- pag e document desc ribed a s a “Per son/Subj ect Entry scre en printout,” the U SCI S withholds “interna l computer c odes assoc iated with a hy per- sensitive law enf

orce ment databa se conta ining homela nd

secur ity information, i.e. , TECS.” Defs.’ Renewe d Mot., Egg leston Dec l., Ex . D (Va ug hn Index) at 1 (pa g e number

desig nated by

the Court). “TE CS i s a compre hensive c omputerized law enfor ceme nt and communications information sy stem . . . desig ned to identify individuals,

7businesses, and ve hicles suspec ted of or involved in violation of fe dera l law.” Id. , Eg g leston

Dec l., Ex . D at 1. It also allows for “ messag e tra nsmitt al betwe en fe dera l, state, and loca l law enfor ceme nt ag encie s,” and “provides ac cess to the F BI ’s National Crime Information Center (NCI C) and the National L aw Enf orce ment Telec ommunications Sy stems (NL ETS).” Id. , Eg g leston Dec l., Ex . D at 1. “[S] trict ac cess c ontrols, passwords and ba ckg round che cks on individuals acce ssing the data” a re a mong the measure s taken to ensur e that TECS data is being handled pr operly

. Id. , Eg g leston Dec l., Ex . D at 1-2.

The USCI S withholds as “high 2” exempt information these interna l computer codes, e x plaining tha

t they “not only permit ac cess to the sy stem, but are tied to the me ans to identify , monitor, track, a udit and, when ne cessa

ry , pursue, a

pprehe nd and prose cute unauthorized uses and use rs.” De fs.’ Rene wed Mot., Eg g leston Dec l., Ex . D at 2. Its declar ant explains t hat “[p]ubl ic dissemination of these a cce ss codes would pe rmit unauthorized users to avoid re cog nition, ins tant detec tion and appre hension, while simultaneously g iving them ne arunfetter ed ac cess to one of the nation’s most critical e lectronic law enf orce ment infrastruc tures and the a bility to irrepa rably corr upt the integ rity

of data contained the rein.” Id. , Eg g leston Dec l., Ex . D at 2.

The diff ere nce be tween “ Hig h 2” and “ L ow 2” e x empt information, long

rec og nized by

the D.C. Circuit, is no longer an ac cepte d distinction. See M ilner v. De

p’t of the Navy, 131 S.Ct . 1259, 1265 (2011) ( “Our construction of the statutory languag e simply

makes clea r that L ow 2 is all of 2 (a

nd that Hig h 2 is not 2 at all . . . .”)). The Supreme Court re cently has held, “ consistent with the plain meaningof the ter m ‘personne l rules and pr actice s,’” that Ex emption 2 “enc ompasses only rec ords re lating to issues of e mploy ee r elations and human

8resour ces.” Id. at 1271. Under Milner , then, “Exemption 2 may no longe r be use d to justi fy withholding re cords on the grounds that disclosure w ould risk circumve ntion of the law or fede ral a g ency

functions.” Raher v. F

ed. Bureau of Prisons , No. CV-09-526, 2011 WL2014875, at *2 (D. O r. May

24, 2011). On this rec ord, the Court ca nnot gr ant summary

judgme nt in defe ndants’ fa

vor with respe ct to any

information withheld under Ex emption 2.

2. Ex emption 6 Ex emption 6 protects “pe rsonnel and me dical files a nd simil ar f

iles the disclosure of which w ould constitute a clea rly unwar rante d invasion of per sonal privac y .” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)( 6). The te rm “similar files” is construed broa dly and is “intende d to cover detailed Gover nment rec ords on an individual which c an be ide ntified as apply ing to that individual.” U.S. Dep’ t of State v. W

ashington Post C

o. , 456 U.S. 595, 602 (1982) (c itation omit ted). “ The information in the file ‘ne ed not be intimate’ f or the file to satisfy

the standar d, and the thre shold for de terminingwhether

information applies to a pa rticular individual is minimal.” Milton v. U.S. Dep’ t of Justice , __ F. Supp. 2d __, __, 2011 WL1743234, at *2 (D.D .C. May 6, 2011) (quoting New Y

ork Times Co. v. Nat’l Aeronautics and SpaceAdmin. , 920 F.2d 1002, 1006 ( D.C. Cir. 1990)). Information prote cted unde r Exemption 6 i ncludes such items a s a per son’s name, addre ss, place of

birth, employ

ment history , and telephone number. See Nat’l Ass’n of Re tired Fed. Employ ees v . Horner , 879 F.2d 873, 875 ( D.C. Cir. 1989); see also Gov’ t Accountability Project v. U

.S. Dep’ t of State , 699 F. Supp. 2d 97, 106 (D.D .C. 2010) (per sonal email addr esses); Schmidt v. Shah , No. 08-2185, 2010 WL1137501, at *9 (D.D .C. Mar. 18, 2010) ( employ ees’ home telephone numbers); Schwaner v. D ep’t of the Army 696 F. Supp. 2d 77, 82 (D.D .C. 2010)

9(name s, ranks, c ompanies and a ddresse s of Army personne l); United Am. Fin., Inc . v. Potter , 667 F. Supp. 2d 49, 65-66 (D .D.C. 2009) (name and c ell phone number of an “ unknown individual”). Once this threshold inquiry is met, the Court employ s a bala ncingtest to determine whe ther rele ase of such information constitut es a c lear ly unwar rante d invasion of per sonal privac y . W ashington Post Co. v. U.S. De p’t of Health and Human Se rvs. , 690 F.2d 252, 260 ( D.C. Cir. 1982). It is the requeste r’s oblig ation to demonstrate the e x istence of a sig nificant public intere st in disclosure. See Coleman v. Lappin , 680 F. Supp. 2d 192, 196 (D.D .C. 2010).

The Ar my denied plaintiff’ s FOI

A re quest in part “in a ccor dance with Title 5, United States Code, Section 552(b)( 6), and pa ragraph 3- 200, Ex emption 6, Army Regulation 25-55, the De partment of the Army Fr eedom of

Information Ac t Progr am.” De fs.’ Rene wed Mot., J ones De cl. ¶ 5. Reda cted we re the names of third pa rties appe aringin the three documents re fer

red by the B ATF E to the Army , see id. , J ones De cl., Attach., in or der “ to protect [t heir] personal pr ivacy ,” id. , J ones De cl. ¶ 4. Only the names w ere reda cted; the r emainder of the documents wa s relea sed. Id. , J ones De cl. ¶ 6. Wholly absent fr om plaintiff’s opposition is an

asser tion of any

public interest which outwe ighs the persona l privacy interests of these third parties. See ge nerallyPl.’s Opp’n.

The Court conc ludes that the Army has complied fully

with its obl iga

tions under the FO IA. Its decision to reda ct the name s of third parties w as appr opriate, a nd all seg reg able information has be en re lease d to plaintiff.

103. Ex emption 7(C) Ex emption 7(C) protec ts from disclosure infor mation in law enfor ceme nt rec ords that “could r easona

bly be expected to c onstitut e an unw arr anted invasion of pe rsonal priva cy .” 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(7)( C). In deter mining whe ther this exemption applies to particular mate rial, 5 the Court must balance the intere st in privacy of individuals mentioned in the rec ords ag ainst the public interest in disclosure. See Sussman v . U.S. Marshals Serv. , 494 F.3d 1106, 1115 ( D.C. Cir. 2007); Bec k v. D ep’t of Justice , 997 F.2d 1489, 1491 ( D.C. Cir. 1993); Davis v. U .S. Dep’ t of Justice , 968 F.2d 1276, 1281 ( D.C. Cir. 1992) . The priva cy interest at stake belong s to the individual, not the gove rnment ag ency , U.S. Dep’ t of Justice v. Re porters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749, 763-65 (1989); Nat’l Ass’n of Retired Fed. Employ ees v . Horner , 879 F.2d 873, 875 ( D.C. Cir. 1989) (notingindividual’s significa nt privacy interest “in avoiding the unlimit ed disclosure of his or her name a nd addre ss”), a

nd individuals have a “ stronginterest in not beingassociate d unwar rante dly with alleg ed cr iminal activity

. Stern v. Fe d. Bureau of Inve stigati on, 737 F.2d 84, 91- 92 (D.C. Cir.1984). “[T]he only public interest re levant for purposes of E x emption 7(C) is one that foc uses on ‘the c itiz ens’ r ight to be inf ormed a bout what their g overnme nt is up to.’” Davis v. U .S. Dep’ t of Justice , 968 F.2d at 1282 (quoting Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press , 489 U.S. at 773). It is the requeste r’s oblig ation to articulate a public interest suff

icient to outweig h an individual’s privac y interest, and the public interest must be sig nificant. See Nat’l Archiv es and Rec ords Admin. v. Favish , 541 U.S. 157, 172 (2004).

The Court alre ady

has dete rmined that the re cords r esponsive to plaintiff’s F OIA 5 reque st were compiled for la w enf orce ment purposes. See Sk inner v. U.S. D ep’t of Justice , 744 F. Supp. 2d at 206. 11Under Ex emption 7(C), the USCI S withholds “the names and identification numbers of la

w enf orce ment personne l found in TECS records c ompiled for law e nforc ement purposes.” Def

.’s Mem., Eg g leston Dec l., Ex . D at 2. Its declar ant asser ts that “[p] ublic identification of a

ny of these individuals could c onceiva bly subject them to hara ssment and annoyance in the conduct of their off icial duties, as we ll as in their private lives.” Id. , Eg g leston Dec l, Ex . D at 2. F urther, the decla rant a sserts that individuals “who ser ve as c are er public

serva nts are not ther eby

stripped of a ll vestige s of per sonal privac y , even w ith respec t to the discharg e of the ir offic ial public duties,” such that the “ interest in protec ting the pr ivacy of . . . law enf orce ment office rs and e mploy ees” preva ils “[i ]n the abse nce of a demonstration of signific ant misconduct.” Id. , Eg g leston Dec l, Ex . D at 2. Ac cording ly , the USCI S redac ts the names of a

nd identifying inf

ormation about law e nforc ement per sonnel mentioned in the re levant

rec ords in order

to preve nt the “risk [of] i mpairingtheir ef fec tiveness by

subjectingthem to potential hara ssment, stigmatization, overwhelmingmedia scr utiny or, worse , phy sical har

m.” Id. , Eg g leston Dec l, Ex . D at 2.

Applying a

simil ar r ationale, the B ATF E withholds under Exemption 7(C) the name of a fe dera l law enf

orce ment ag ent and “ the fa ce of a third par

ty individual refe renc ed in

connec tion with the investigation” of plaintiff’s ac tiviti es. De fs.’ Rene wed Mot., L abrie Dec l. ¶ 9. Absent plaintiff’ s submissi on of “w aiver s that would permit rele ase of any third party individual’s information,” the B ATF E’s dec lara nt expl ains that the ag ency “bala nce[d] the interests at stake ” and “ deter mined that . . . disclosure of the information could re asonably be expected to ca

use the third par

ties . . . embarr assment, har assment, and ha rm, and would do little,

12if any

thing at all, to aid the public’s under standingof the B ATF E.” Id. , Def s.’ Renew ed Mot., L abrie Dec l. ¶ 11.

“The D.C. Circuit has consistently held that [E] x emption 7(C) protec ts the privacy interests of a ll persons mentioned in law e nforc ement re cords, includinginvestigators, suspects, witnesses and infor

mants, and has de termined that such third- party information is cate g orica lly exempt from disclosure under [E] x emption 7(C), in the absenc e of a n overriding public inter est in its di sclosure.” Lewis v. U.S. Dep’ t of Justice , 609 F. Supp. 2d 80, 84 (D.D .C. 2009) (interna l quotation marks and c itations omi tted); see Sussman v. U.S. M arshals Serv. , 494 F.3d at 1116 (name s, addre sses, telephone numbers, socia l security numbers and othe r private information about law e nforc ement off icer s, other g overnme nt employ ees, a nd third parties other

than a third party who had a

uthorized the relea se of r ecor ds about himself to the reque ster); Richardson v. U.S. Dep’ t of Justice , No. 09-1916, 2010 WL3191796, at *7-8 (D .D.C. Aug . 13, 2010) (identities of and pe rsonal information about FB ISpecial Ag ents, Metropolitan Police Depa rtment offic ers, law

enfor ceme nt technicians, a n Assistant United States Attorney , and eyewitnesses to a

n attempted murde r); Lasko v. U.S. De p’t of Justice , 684 F. Supp. 2d 120, 132 (D.D.C. 2010) ( identities of DEA Spec ial Ag ents and labor atory personne l, and state a

nd local law enf orce ment office rs); W

illis v. U.S. De

p’t of Justice , 581 F. Supp. 2d 57, 76 (D.D .C. 2008) (identities of fe dera l and local law enfor ceme nt personnel) . Absent a showingby plaintiff that “the public inter est soug ht to be advanc ed is a significant one . . . and . . . [that] the information is likely to advanc e that intere st,” Sussman v. U.S. M arshals Serv. , 494 F.3d a

t 1115 (internal quotation marks and c itations omi tted), the Court conc ludes that the ag ency proper ly withheld this thi rd par

ty information under

Ex emption 7(C).

134. Ex emption 7(E) Ex emption 7(E) prote cts from disclosure law enf orce ment rec ords “to the e x tent that the produc tion of such law e nforc ement re cords or information . . . would disclose techniques a

nd proce dures f

or law e nforc ement investig ations or prosec utions, or would disclose guidelines for la

w enf orce ment investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could re asonably be expected to r isk circumvention of the law.” 5 U .S.C. § 552(b)(7)(E ). Courts have he ld that information per

taining to law

enfor ceme nt techniques a nd proce dures pr operly

is withheld under Ex emption 7(E) whe re disclosure rea sonably could lead to c ircumvention of law s or re gulations. See, e .g., Morley v . Cent. Intelligence Agenc y , 453 F. Supp. 2d 137, 157 (D.D .C. 2006) (appr oving the withholding of infor mation pertainingto security clea ranc es and ba ckg round investigations on the gr ound that “disclosure of CIA sec urity clea ranc e and inve stigatory proce sses would risk circ umvention of those proc esses in the futur e”) , rev’d on other grounds , 508 F.3d 1108 ( D.C. Cir. 2007); Fisher v. U.S. D ep’t of Justice , 772 F. Supp. 7, 12 (D.D .C. 1991) (upholdingFB I ’s dec ision to wit hhold information about law e nforc ement tec hniques wher e disclosure would impair its future ef fec tiveness and, “ within the context of the documents at issue could ale rt subjects in druginvestigations about techniques used to a id the FB I ”), aff’d , 968 F.2d 92 ( D.C. Cir. 1992).

“The TECS scree n printout at issue here , amongother thing s, contains a ‘ allpoints bull etin’ re g ardingan ong oing c riminal law enf orce ment operation; a brief pr ofile of the subject of this communication, includinghis involvement, habits and level of thre at; subject trac king; a

nd actions to be take n by

law enf orce ment ag ents stationed at che ck points if subjects

are encounte red.” Def

s.’ Renew ed Mot., Eg g leston Dec l., Ex . D at 3. Relea se of this

14information to plaintiff, the dec lara nt states, “will have the unintended and unde sirable r esult of placingthe same infor

mation at the disposal of other subje cts of investig ation(s), a ssisti ngthem to evade detec tion and appre hension by aler ting them to the investig ation techniques use d to aid the under lying la

w enf orce ment operation and, there by , impair the ef fec tiveness of those law enfor ceme nt techniques.” Id. , Eg g leston Dec l., Ex . D at 3.

D.C. Circuit prece dent “se ts a relatively low bar f or the a g ency

to justi fy withholding” inf

ormation under E x emption 7(E). Blackwell v. F ed. Bureau of I

nvestigation , __ F.3d __, __, 2011 WL2600831, at *3 (D.C. Cir. J uly 1, 2011). The e x emption allows for withholding information in the face of “not just for c ircumvention of the la w, but for a

risk of circ umvention; not jus t for an a ctual or c erta in risk of circ umvention, but for an e x pecte d risk; not just for an undenia

bly or universa lly

expected risk, but for a

rea sonably

expected risk; and not just for ce rtitude of a r easona bly expected risk, but for the chanc e of a rea sonably

expected risk.” Id. (quoting Maye r Brown LL P v. Inte rnal Reve nue Serv ., 562 F.3d 1190, 1193 ( D.C. Cir. 2009)). L aw e nforc ement proc edure s and tec hniques are aff orded c ateg orica l protection under Ex emption 7(E), see Fishe r v. U.S. De p’t of Justice , 772 F. Supp. at 12 n.9, and pla intiff prese nts no argument to rebut the USCI S’ showing that the information withheld fa lls withi n the scope of such protec tion.

The Court conc ludes that the USCI S properly has re dacte d from the TECS scre en printout information pertainingto the techniques, pr ocedur es and guidelines for a ction in an ong oing c riminal law enf orce ment operation.

15I I I . CONCLUSI ON The Court conc ludes that the B ATF E has demonstrated its full compliance with the FO IA by

rele asingcopies of photographs a fter ha ving r edac ted only

the name of

a fe dera l law enfor ceme nt ag ent and the f ace of a third pa

rty , as has the Army

by reda ctingonly

the names of third parties. F urther, the Court concludes that the USCI S properly withheld the names a

nd employ ee ide ntification numbers of f eder al law e nforc ement off icer s under Exemption 7(C) and investigation techniques under Ex emption 7(E). In these re spects, def endants’ r enew ed motion for summary

judgme nt will be gr anted. B eca use the USCI S relies on an imper missibl e basis for withholding computer

acc ess code s under Exemption 2, the moti on will be denied in par t without prejudice. An appropr iate Or der a ccompa nies this Opinion.

/s/ PAULL . FRI EDMAN DATE: August 24, 2011 United States District J udg e

16