The followingpaper s are rele vant to the pendingmotions: Def endant’ s Motion for 1 Summary Judg me nt ( “ De f. Mo t.” ); Pla int if f’ s Cr os s- Mo tio n f

or Summary

Judg me nt ( “ Pl. Mot.”); Def

endant’ s Reply

in Furthe r Support of its Motion for Summ ary J udg ment and Op po sit ion

to P la int if

f’ s Cr os s- Mo tio n f

or Summa ry Judg me nt ( “ De f. Re p. ” ); Pla int if f’ s Re ply in S up po rt

of Cr os s- Mo tio n f

or Summary

Judg me nt; De fe nd ant’ s Me mor and um i n O pp os iti on

to Plaintiff’s Rule 56(f) Motion (“ Def . Opp. to 56(f) ”); De fenda nt’s Notice of

Supplemental Authority ; Plainti ff’ s Response to Def endant’ s Notice of Supplementa l Authority ; and D e f e n d an t ’ s R e p l y t o P l a i n t i f f ’ s R e s p o n s e t o N o t i c e o f

S u p p l e m e n t a l A u th o r i ty. UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT C OU RT F O R T H E D IS T R IC T O F C O LU M B IA

__________________________________________ ) SAMI R HUSSAI

N, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Ci vi l A cti on No. 07 -16 33 (P L F) ) UNI TED S TAT ES DEP AR TM ENT OF ) HOMELAND SECURI TY, ) ) De fe nd ant. ) __________________________________________)
OPI NI ON This Fre edom of Information Ac t (“F OIA”) matter is bef ore the Court on the parties’ cross motions for summary judgme nt. After c are ful consider ation of the pa rties’ pa pers and attac hed exhibits , the re levant ca se law a nd the statute, the Court conc luded that the defe ndant’s sea

rch w as ade quate, but that its Vaug hn Index is inadequate. Acc ording ly , by Orde r of September

30, 2009, the Court g rante d defe ndant’s motion in part and de nied it in part without prejudice ; it also denied plaintiff’s motion without prejudice. This Opinion explains the
rea soning unde rlying that Order
. 12 I . BA CKGROUND Plaintiff, Samir Hussain, is an Iraqi c itiz en who ha s resided in the United States sin c e 19 96 . Se e Pl. Mo t., Ex. 2 , D e c laratio n o f S amir J. Hu ssa in i n Su

pp or t of Pla int if f’ s Cr os s Motion for Summary

J udg ment (“H ussain Dec l.”) ¶¶ 3-4. The D epar

tment of Homeland Security detained him for

almost eig ht months from 2003 through 2004. See id. ¶ 21. He ha s since be en g rante d asylum in the United States. See id. ¶ 24.

On September

23, 2005, plaintiff submitted a FO I A re quest to the United States Citi zen sh ip a

nd I mmi g ratio n Se rv ic e s ( “ USC I S” ), Ce ntr a l O ff ic e in t he Di str ic t of

Col umb ia (“Centr al Off

ice” ) see king pa

perw ork re g ardinghis detention, specific ally his own “‘A pprehe nsion Record’; a

ny Bor der Patrol Disposition; I -213 Recor d of De portable A lien; and any other infor

mation possessed by

DHS reg ardingHussain’s dete ntion on J uly 24, 2003.” De f. Mot., Defe ndant’s Statement of Material F acts a s to W hich Ther e is no Genuine Dispute (“D ef. Fa cts”) ¶ 1. Ba sed on an initial elec tronic sea rch, the Central Of

fice deter mined that the re cords
re le va nt t o p la int if

f’ s r e qu e st w e re loc ate d at th e Natio na l Re c or d Ce nte r ( “ NR C” ), and it tr ans fe rr e d th e re qu e st t o th e NR C f or a dir e c t r e sp on se to p la int if f. Se e id. ¶ 2 . T he NR C
scanne d responsive r ecor ds into an elec tronic file to fa cilitate final proc essingpursuant to the FOIA. See id. ¶ 4. O n Marc h 6, 2007, USCI S issued its final dete rmination. See id. ¶ 5. Followingplaintiff’s administrative a ppeal, USCI S supplemented its relea se. USCI S has now
re le a se d 5 03 do c ume nts in t he ir e nti re ty and ha s w ithhe ld 6 1 p a g e s in pa rt and 34 pa g e s in

the ir
e nti re ty . Se e id. ¶ 7 . D iss atis fi e d w iththe pr od uc tio n, pla int if

f f ile d s uit in t his Court .3 I I . STANDARD OF REVI EW T h e f un d am en t al p urp o s e o f t h e F OIA i s t o as s i s tci t i z en s i nd i s co v er i n g “ what their governme nt is up to. ” De p’t of Just ice v. Repor ters Comm. for F ree dom of the Press, 489 U. S. 7 49 , 7 73 (1 98 9) (e mph a sis in o ri g ina l) . T he F OIA s tr on g ly fa vo rs op e nn e ss, a s Co ng re ss
re c og nize d in

e na c tin git that an in fo rm e d c iti zenry is “ vit a l to the fu

nc tio nin gof

a de moc ratic society , neede d to chec k ag ainst corr uption and to hold the gove rnors a ccounta ble to the g overne d.” NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 242 (1978); see also Dep’ t of the Air F orce v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 361 (1976) (pur pose of the F OIA is “to pierc e the ve il of administrative sec rec y

and to open a g ency

action to the lig ht of public scrutiny”). A s such, “disclosure , not secre cy , is the dominant objective of the A ct.” De p’t of the Air For ce v. Rose, 425 U.S. at 361.

The Court will g rant a

motion for summary

judgme nt if the pleading s, the discovery and disclosure materia ls on file, and any aff idavits or decla

rations 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. F ED . R. C IV . P. 56(c) . The movingparty bear s the burden of

demonstratingthe 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
asser tions in t he movingparty ’s af fidavits or dec larations may be ac cepte d as true unle ss the opposing pa

rty submits i ts own aff

idavits or decla

rations or doc umentary

evidenc e to the contra ry . Nea l v. Kelly , 963 F.2d 453, 456 ( D.C. Cir. 1992). FOIA ca ses ty

pically and appr opriately

are decide d on motions for summary judgme nt. Defe nders of

Wil dlife v. U.S. Bor der Patrol, 623 F . Supp. 2d 83, 87 (D.D.C. 2009); Big wood v. United States Ag ency for Int’l Dev., 484 F . Supp. 2d 68, 73 (D.D.C. 2007). In a4

FOIA ca se, the Court may awa rd summary

judgme nt solely

on the basis of infor

mation provided in affida vits or declar ations when the a ffidavits or de clar ations are “re latively detailed a

nd
non-conc lusory ,” Safe Card Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197, 1200 (D .C. Cir. 1991), and de sc ri be “ the do c ume nts and the jus tif ic atio ns fo r n on dis c los ur e wi th r e a so na bly sp e c if ic de ta il, demonstrate that the information withheld log ically falls within the claimed e x emption, and ar e not controver

ted by either c ontrary

evidenc e in the re cord nor by evidenc e of a g ency

bad fa ith.” Milit ary Audit Project v. Casey , 656 F.2d 724, 738 ( D.C. Cir. 1981); see a lso Vaug hn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820, 826- 27 (D.C. Cir. 1973), c e rt. denied, 415 U.S. 977 (1974); Her tzberg v. Vene man, 273 F. Supp. 2d 67, 74 (D .D.C. 2003). An ag ency must demonstrate that “e ach do c ume nt t

hat f a lls wi thi n th e c la ss r e qu e ste d e ith e r h a s b e e n p ro du c e d, is unid e nti fi a ble , o r i s wholly [or partially ] ex empt from the Ac t’s inspection requir ements.” G oland v. CI A, 607 F.2d 339, 352 (D.C. Cir. 1978); see a lso St udents Ag ainst Genoc ide v. Dep’ t of State, 257 F.3d 828, 833 (D.C. Cir. 2001); Her tzberg v. Vene man, 273 F. Supp. 2d at 74.

I I I . DI SCUS SI ON Pla int if f a rgue s th at th e de fe nd ant f a ile d to c on du c t an a de qu ate se arc h a nd that it has not met its burden to justify its non-disclosure of r esponsive docume nts. Pl aintiff also see ks an interim aw ard of

attorney s’ fe es. The Court will addr ess these a rguments in turn. A. Adequac

y of the Searc h “An a g ency

fulfills its obl iga

tions under FO I A if it can de monstrate beyond materia l doubt that its sear ch wa s ‘re asonably calc ulated to uncove r all re levant docume nts.’” Valenc ia-L

ucena v. United States Coast Guard, 180 F .3d 321, 325 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (quoting5

Truitt v. Dep’t of State, 897 F .2d 540, 542 (D.C. Cir. 1990)); see also Campbell v. Dep’ t of J ustice, 164 F .3d 20, 27 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (F OIA re quires ag ency to conduct sea

rch using methods rea sonably

expected to produc e re quested infor mation); Wi lderne ss Soc’y v. Dep’ t of Inte ri or , 3 44 F . Su

pp . 2 d 1 , 2 0 ( D. D. C. 2 00 4) . T he a g e nc y be ars the burd e n o f s ho wi ngthat it s
sear ch wa s calc ulated to uncove r all re levant docume nts. St einber gv. Dep’ t of J ustice, 23 F .3d 548, 551 (D.C. Cir. 1994). To mee t its burden, the ag ency may submit affidavits or dec larations that explain in reasonable de tail the scope a nd method of the a g ency ’s sea rch. Judicial Watch, Inc. v. De p’t of Just ice, 185 F . Supp. 2d 54, 63 (D.D.C. 2002). While the aff idavits or decla rations submitted by

the ag ency

need not “ set forth with meticulous documentation the details of an e pic sea

rch f or the re quested re cords,” Perry v. Bloc k, 684 F.2d 121, 127 ( D.C. Cir. 1982), they

must “descr ibe what r ecor ds were sear ched, by whom, and throug h what proc esses.” Steinbergv. Dep’ t of J ustice, 23 F .3d at 552.

USCI S lim ited its searc h to the ag ency ’s sy stem of re cords known a s the Alien File/Centra l I ndex S y stem (“A- File” ) bec ause this sy stem “conta ins the universe of documented transac tions between Plaintiff a nd U.S. immi g ration authorities in USCI S’s custody .” See D ef. Opp. to 56(f) , Ex . A, Supplemental Dec laration of Br ian J . Welsh (“Supp. Welsh Decl.”) ¶ 10. Plaintiff argues that the sea rch w as incomplete, ba sed on his belief that cer tain rec ords wer e g ener ated dur ing his a

rre st and detention — spec ifically a sworn statement, detaine e classification recor ds, rec ords and notes of interviews by

g overnme nt officials, re cords of
corr espondenc e with a de portation offic er, me dical files, incide nt reports, re ports documenting disciplinary

and/or a dminist rative se g reg ation, employ ment rec ords, commissary rec ords, re cords of law libra

ry usag e bunk che cklists, and a re ceipt for possessions — which wer e neither6

pr od uc e d n or ide nti fi e d in

the Va ug hn Ind e x. Se e Pl. Mo t., Me mor and um o f L aw i n Su

pp or t at 7 (citingHussain Dec l. ¶¶ 9, 11-12, 15- 20, 22). Plaintiff also provided a s exhi bits copies of four documents that he be lieves we re r esponsive to his reque st, but are not ac counted f or in the ag ency ’s produc tion. See id. (citingHussain Dec l. ¶ 30(a) -(d) ).

Def endant a rgues that USCI S did not pos sess many of the doc uments identified by plaintiff, eve n though oth e r c om po ne nts of DHS mig ht possess them. Accor ding to DH S, the majority of the doc uments that plaintiff believe s should have bee n produce d — the detaine e classification recor ds, medical files, inc ident repor ts, reports docume nting disciplinary and/or administrative seg reg ation, employ ment rec ords, commissary rec ords, re cords of

law librar

y usag e, bunk che cklists, and a re ceipt for possession — if they

exis t, would exi st in plainti ff’ s de te nti on file , n ot i n h is A -F ile . Se e De f. Re p. at 6 ( c iti ngDe f. Re p. Ex. A ). Th e de te nti on fi le is separ ate f rom an individual’s A-F ile and is maintained by the United States Immigration and Customs Enforc ement (“ I CE”), not by USCI S, the entity

to which plaintiff sent his FO I A re quest. See De f. Rep., Ex. A (“I CE/DRO Detention Standard r e: Dete ntion Files”).

DHS’s FO I A re g ulations state that when r espondingto an FO I A re quest, “a
c omp on e nt o rd ina

ri ly wi ll i nc lud e on ly

re c or ds in its poss ession as of the date the compone nt be g ins its se arc h f

or the m.” Se e 6 C. F .R. § 5 .4 (a ) ( e mph a sis a dd e d) . Pl a int if f s ub mitte d h is F OIA r e qu e st t o U SCI S, n ot t o I CE; de fe nd ant t he re fo re a c te d a

pp ro pr iate ly

wh e n it lim ite d it s
sear ch to re cords in USCI S’s possession. See Trupei v. DE A, Civil Action No. 06-1162, 2007 U.S. Dist. L EXI S 31055 at *6 (D.D.C. Apr. 27, 2007) (an a g ency component nee d not forwa rd FOIA re quests to another a g ency component whe n its regulations do not require it to do so)Plaintiff argues that the multiple decla rations from B rian Welsh sug g est an 2 inconsistency

as to which c omponent had possession of his detention file. The Supplemental Welsh Declar ation makes c lear to the Court, however , that the A-F ile contains all docume nted transac tions between pla intiff and the United States’ s immi g ration authorities whic h are in USCIS’s custody , while the dete ntion file is a separ ate r epository of information. See Supp. Welsh Decl. ¶ 10. The orig inal Welsh Declar ation did not dist inguish be tween the A-F ile and the detention file, a

nd the Court interpre ts the first footnote to that dec laration, which sug g ests that the A-F ile is the on ly

repository

of information that any

of the DH S components would have f or pla int if f, se e De f. Mo t., De c laratio n o f B ri an J. We lsh (“ Wel shDe c l.” ) a

t 2 n .1 , a s c are le ss draf ting, not as indicative of a dising enuous re sponse by the ag ency . 7 (citingNational Sec. Archive v. Arc hivist of the U.S., 909 F.2d 541, 546 (D.C. Cir. 1990)). 2 Acc ording ly , the fa ilure to discover these re cords ( if they

exis t) — which we re not in USCI S’s possession — does not cre ate “ positive indications of overlooked materials” a nd does not support
a c on c lus ion

that th e a g e nc y ’s se arc h w a s in a de qu ate . V a le nc ia -L uc e na v. Un ite d St ate s Co a st Guar d, 180 F.3d at 326.

Th e pa rt ie s a g re e that th e fo llo wi ngre c or ds , whic h p la int if f b e lie ve s e xist, wo uld not have be en conta ined in plaintiff’s dete ntion file: a sworn stateme nt, rec ords and notes of interviews by

g overnme nt officials, a

nd rec ords of c orre spondence with a depor tation office r. Plaintiff argues that the fa ilure to produce these re cords r ender s the sear ch inade quate, but pla int if f’ s d e sc ri pti on

of the sw or n s tate me nt a

nd g ov e rnme nt o ff

ic ia ls’ re c or ds and

no te s su g g e st that they would not have be en in USCI S’s possession and there fore in his A-File. The fac t that plaintiff alleg edly

was intervie wed by

an F BI ag ent or De partment of D efe nse off icer s three or four times while at the Krome Proc essingCenter, se e Hussain De cl. ¶¶ 12, 15, doe s not
ne c e ssa ri ly le a d to the c on c lus ion

that any a sso c iate d d oc ume nts wo uld be c on ta ine d in plaintiff’s A- File. That file relates solely to plaintiff’s intera ction with “immigration authorities.” See Supp. Welsh Decl. ¶ 10. It is more likely that the documents would be in the possession of8

the interview ers’ ag encie s, the FB Ior DOD . Even a ccor ding to the pla intiff, the ag ents wer e
atte mpt ingto c on du c t a

la w e nf or c e me nt o r m ili tary

inv e sti g atio n, ins of

ar a s th e of

fi c ia ls qu e sti on e d p la int if

f a bo ut S a dd am H us se in a

nd we a po ns of ma ss d e str

uc tio n; t he ir qu e sti on s d id not directly

relate to immigration issues. S ee H ussain Dec l. ¶¶ 12, 15. Nor doe s plaintiff’s desc ription of his corre spondence with his deportation office r persua de the Court that the f ailure to produc e re cords a rising f rom this corre spondence demonstrates that USCI S’s searc h was inade quate. While he may have w ritten to his deportation office r fr om Krome to g et an update on his deportation and his de portation offic er ma y have called to tell him the proc essingof his deportation had been de lay ed, see Hussain Dec l. ¶ 14, the failure to find a letter f

rom plaintiff to his deportation off icer in the USCI S file alone doe s not make a n otherwise r easona

ble sea rch ina dequate . See Steinbergv. Dep’ t of J ustice, 23 F .3d 548, 55 1 ( D. C. C ir . 1 99 4) (“ Th e qu e sti on is n ot ‘ wh e the r t

he re might e xist a

ny oth e r d oc ume nts possibly responsive to the r equest, but rather whe ther the search for those doc uments was ad e qu ate .’”) (quoting Weisbergv. Dep’ t of J ustice, 745 F .2d at 1485)).

F ina lly , p la int if

f a rgue s th at th e se arc h w a s in a de qu ate be c a us e c e rt a in d oc ume nts , copies of which he attaches to his dec laration, were not discovere d duringthe sea rch — his DHS
me dic a l r e c or ds , a

F e br ua ry 9, 19 99 le tte r f

ro m Se nator

Di ane F e ins te in, a

June 9, 20 00 “ Re qu e st for Evide nce” sent from I NS, and a por

tion of plaintiff’s letter to I NS reg ardinghis Application for Employ

ment Authorization. S ee H ussain Dec l. ¶ 30. DHS has explained that the medica l
re c or ds wo uld

have be e n c on ta ine d in

pla int if f’ s d e te nti on

fi le , n ot i n h is A -F ile at U SCI S. B oth the dates a

nd contents of the othe r three rec ords show that they are non-re sponsive to plaintiff’s F OIA r e qu e st b e c a

us e the do c ume nts , d ate d in 19 99 and 20 00 , r e late to e ve nts signif ic antl yPlaintiff also argues that DHS has not stated what sea rch te rms it used to find 3 re sp on siv e fi le s w ith in t

he A- F ile . In f

a c t, U SCI S “ de e me d th e su bje c t a lie n f

ile re sp on siv e to Plaintiff’s reque st in its e nti re ty .” See Welsh De cl. ¶ 12 (e mphasis added)
. 9 befor e his detention in 2003; and the undated letter to the I NS reg ards his application for employ ment and travel documents, whic h are also unrelated to his detention. Even if plaintiff’ s A-F ile contained the se docume nts, USCI S need not have produce d them upon revie w of the A
File. Takin ga

dif fe re nt t a c k, pla int if

f a lso argue s th at th e se arc h w a s in a de qu ate beca use def endant f ailed to identify

what sea rch te rms wer e used to sea rch f or the re sponsive
re c or ds and

tha t th e se arc h te rm s th at w e re us e d ma y ha ve be e n in a de qu ate . Pl a int if f b a se s h is argument on the orig inal decla ration of B rian J. W elsh. DHS also filed a supplemental decla ration fr om Mr. Welsh, in which he explained that the ag ency deter mined that all of the reque sted documents we re loc ated in plaintiff’ s A-F ile, which “c ontains the universe of documented tr ansac tions between Plaintiff a nd U.S. immi g ration authorities in USCI S’s custody .” See Supp. Welsh Dec l. ¶¶ 9-10. Thus, upon loc atingplaintiff’s A- File, a nd examining the re sponsive documents, the sea rch w as complete . There can be no question that the sear ch t e r m s u s e d t o l o c at e p l a i n t i f

f ’ s A
- F i l e w e r e a d e qu at e , b e c a u s e U S C IS succe eded in locating the A-Fi le ; no other re sponsive documents ar e in the possession of USCI S. See id. ¶ 14. The Court 3 conclude s that USCI S’s searc h was a dequate , which is why it gr anted summary

judgme nt for the defe ndant on this issue.10 B. Adequac

y of the Vaughn Inde

x to Justify W

ithholding U n d e r th e F O IA , ana g e n c y

m ay w i th h o l d d o c u m e n t s r e s p o n s i v e t o a F O IA reque st only

if the re sponsive documents fa ll within one of nine enumer ated statutory exemptions . See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b); see also Dep’ t of Def ense v. F ed. L abor Relations Auth., 510 U.S. 487, 494 (1994). The ag ency bear s the burden of

justify ing a

ny withholding. See B ig wo od v. Un ite d St ate s A g e nc y

fo r I nt’ l D e v. , 4 84 F . Su

pp . 2 d at 74 . T o e na

ble the Court

to deter mine whether

documents prope rly

wer e withheld, the a g ency must provide a deta iled descr iption of the information withheld throug h the submission of a so-ca lled “Va ug hn Index,” sufficie ntly

detailed a ffidavits or de clar ations, or both. See id.; see a lso Og lesby v. Dep’ t of the Army , 79 F.3d 1172, 1178 ( D.C. Cir. 1996); Vaug hn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d at 827-28. The Va ug hn Index and/or acc ompanying a ffidavits or de clar ations must “provide[] a re latively detailed justification, specifica lly

identif[y ] t he re asons why a par ticular e x emption is relevant a nd
corr elat[e] thos e cla ims with t he par ticular pa rt of a w ithheld document to which they apply .” J udicial Watch, Inc. v. F DA, 449 F .3d 141, 146 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (quotingMead D ata Cent., Inc. v. Dep’ t of the Air F orce , 566 F.2d 242, 251 ( D.C. Cir. 1977)). While there is no set for m for a Vaughn Index, the ag ency should “disclose as much inf ormation as possible without thwarting the exemption’s purpose.” Ha ll v. Dep’t of Justi ce, 552 F . Supp. 2d 23, 27 (D.D.C. 2008) (quoting Kingv. Dep’ t of J ustice, 830 F .2d 210, 224 (D.C. Cir. 1987)).

DHS’s Vaughn Index is fairly leng thy , identifying e ach doc ument by pag e number and providingthree cate g ories of infor mation for ea ch: a br ief de scription of the doc ument, the
e x e mp t i o n ( s ) c i t e d , an d

th e c o n t e n to f

th e w i th h e l d

p o rt i o nan d

th e b a s i s f

o r i t s w i th h o l d i n g . It has ce rtain basic de ficienc ies, howeve r. It does not identify potentially

rele vant information such11

a s th e date , a

uth or or re c ipi e nt o f t

he do c ume nt. As the c ourt of a pp e a ls h a s e xpla ine d, de ta ils such as these often a

re ne cessa

ry “to ena ble the cour

t and the opposingparty

to understand the withheld information in order to addre ss the merits of the c laimed exemptions.” J udicial Watch, Inc. v. F DA, 449 F .3d at 150. As explained below, these defic iencies c ontribute to the Court’s conclusion that the Va

ug hn Index is inadequate.

1. Ex emption 2 Ex emption 2 protects mater ials that are “re lated solely to the internal pe rsonnel
ru le s and pr a c tic e s o f a

n a g e nc y .” 5 U .S. C. § 55 2( b) (2 ). I t a pp lie s to tw o c ate g or ie s o f m ate ri a l: (1) inter nal ag ency

matters so routine or

trivial that they

could not be “subje ct to . . . a g enuine and sig nificant public intere st”; and (2) internal a g ency matters of some public inter est “whe re disclosure may

risk circ umvention” of statutes or a g ency regulations. Dep’t of the Air F orce v. Ros e , 4 25 U. S. 3 52 , 3 69 -7 0 ( 19 76 ); se e L on gv. De p’ t of Justi c e , 4 50 F . Su

pp . 2 d 4 2, 54 (D .D .C. 2006) (c iting Schwa

ner v. D ep’t of the Air F orce , 898 F.2d 793, 794 ( D.C. Cir. 1990)). Gene rally , courts limit Ex emption 2 protection to “trivial administrative matter s” (“ low 2” exempt information), and to information that, if disclosed, “ would risk circ umvention of ag ency statutes or re g ulations” (“hig h 2” exempt information). L ongv. Dep’ t of J ustice, 450 F . Supp. 2d at 54 (c iting Schiller v. Nat’l L abor Relations Bd., 964 F.2d 1205, 1207 ( D.C. Cir. 1992)).

DH S state s th at it

ha s w ithhe ld s ix cate g or ie s o f i nf or matio n p ur su ant t o exemption 2: (1) of

fice rs’ Use rI Ds; (2) c omputer oper ation codes; (3) employ ee te lephone a nd fac simil e number s; (4) interna l ag ency administrative forms; (5) third-par ty rec ords; and (6) inter nal ag ency

rules and pr actice s. See De f. Mot. at 13. To justify its withhol dings unde r12

e xemp tio n 2 , D HS s tate s in the Va ug hn Ind e x that: Th e ty pe s o f d oc ume nts and

/or inf or matio n th at w e have wi thh e ld un de r [e xemp tio n 2 ] may re late to i nte rn a l matte rs of a re lativ e ly trivial nature, suc h as interna l personnel r ules and pra ctices which c ou ld c on sis t of

e mpl oye e ide nti fi c atio n c od e s, c omp ute r l og in codes, policie s reg ardingthe use of pa rkingfac iliti es and br eak rooms, employ ee le ave policie s and dre ss codes or inter nal matters of a mor e su bs tanti a l natur e , th e dis c los ur e of wh ic h w ou ld r isk c ir c umv e nti on

of a le g a l r e qu ir e me nt, su c h a s o pe ra tin gru le s, g uidelines and manua ls of the proc edure s for e x aminers or adjudicator s. Welsh Decl., Ex. E., Vaug hn Index at Doc. No. 383. As c larified by defe ndant’s re ply

brief, office rs’ Use rI Ds, computer ope ration code s, employ ee te lephone a nd fac simil e number s and email addr esses a

nd third-par

ty rec ords wer e re dacte d from docume nts under the low 2 exemption, whil e the r emainingdocuments we re w ithheld in whole or in part unde r the hig h 2 exemption. S ee D ef. Rep. a t 10-11. Wit h reg ard to the doc uments withheld under the low 2 e x emption, DHS has the burden of establishing, thr oug h aff

idavits or decla

rations, “that the materials withheld under the ‘low 2’ e x emption ‘relate[] solely to [ DHS’s] int erna l personnel r ules and pra ctices’ and ar e used predominantly

for inter nal purposes, 5 U .S.C. § 552(b)(2), a nd that they

relate ‘to trivial adm in is tr ati ve m att ers of n o genu in e publ ic i nt eres t, ’” J ame s M adi so n P roj ectv. CI A, 6 07 F. Supp. 2d 109, 124 (D.D.C. 2009) (c iting Schwa ner v. D ep’t of the Air F orce , 898 F.2d at 794). The invocation of cer

tain of def

endant’ s low 2 exempti ons — where the Vaughn Index sp e c if ic a lly ide nti fi e s r e da c te d in fo rm atio n a s c omp ute r o pe ratio n c od e s o r o ff ic e rs ’ U se rI Ds — is a mpl y su pp or te d b y the c a se law. Se e , e .g ., F e rr anti v. B AT F , 1 77 F . Su pp . 2 d 4 1, 45 (D .D .C. 2001) (inter

nal computer

codes) ; Ba

ng oura v. United States Dep’t of the Army , 607 F. Supp. 2d13

13 4, 14 5 ( D. D. C. 2 00 9) (s pe c ia l a g e nt s e qu e nc e numbe rs ). Whe re the ty pe of mate ri a l so pla inl y relates to trivial ag ency

matters as to be of no public intere st, ex emption is virtually automatic. See Ray v. FB I , 441 F. Supp. 2d 27, 33 (D.D .C. 2006). I t is much less clear , howeve r, that the

“ thi rd -p art

y re c or ds ,” wh ic h w e re wi thh e ld, ne c e ssa ri ly are so tr ivi a l a s to be of

no pu bli c int e re st — and def

endant ha s made no e ffor t to meet its burden to explain why the plaintiff or the Court should conclude that they are . Mo re ov e r, fo r a ll e xemp tio ns , e ve n lo w 2 e xemp tio ns , th e a g e nc y sti ll mus t identify , with some detail, what mate rial it is redac ting f rom the par

ticular doc uments, and may
no t on ly ref er to a g ener alized justi fication for re daction. See, e .g ., Def ender s of Wildl ife v. Uni tedS tat es Bo rder

P atr ol 62 3 F. S up p. 2dat 8 9-9 0. Cf . J ame s M adi so n P roj ectv. CI A, 6 07 F. Supp. 2d 109, 125 (D.D.C. 2009) (f inding a n ag ency ’s withholding unde r the low 2 e x emption
a d e qu at e , b e c a

u s e th e a g e n c y’ s d e c l ar at i o nd e t a i l e d th e i n f o r m at i o nw i th h e l d

“ d o c u m e n t - b ydocument” a

nd did not rely

on “vag ue re fer ence s”). In most cases, DH S fails to do so, and the context of the reda ction is not clear f rom the Va

ug hn Index. S ee, e .g ., Vaughn Index at Doc. No. 39 1 ( “ e xemp tio n b (2 ) b e inga pp lie d to a

po rt ion of the fo rm ” ); Do c . N o. 39 5 ( same ). Th e se explanations are simply

insufficient for

the Court to determine what ty pe of infor

mation was reda cted, much le ss whether the information is claimed to be exempt under the low 2 or hig h 2 exemption. According ly , they are inadequate to meet DHS’s bur den. See Robinson v. Attorney Gene ral, 534 F . Supp. 2d 72, 80 (D.D.C. 2008) (f inding a g ency

decla ration which did not indicate c lear ly

whether materia l was withheld as low 2 or high 2 e x empt materia l inadequate ). DH S’ s ju sti fi c atio ns fo r i ts w ithho ldi ng s und e r t he high 2 e xemp tio n a lso fre quently

are defic ient. To be prote cted by the hig h 2 exemption, i nformation must be14

predominantly

internal a nd disclosure must signific antly risk circ umvention of ag ency regulations or statutes. See L ongv. Dep’ t of J ustice, 450 F . Supp. 2d at 54 (citing Schiller v. NL RB, 964 F .2d at 1207). Plaintiff foc uses on seve ral doc uments withheld by DHS in full which have titles such a s “Interna l Covershee t” (Doc . No. 392) a nd “Memora

ndum of Investig ation” (D oc . N os . 4 42 and

55 5) . D e fe nd ant p ro vid e s n o e xplanatio n f or wi thh old ingthe se do c ume nts other than by

ref ere nce to its g ener al justification for a ll documents withheld under Exemption 2. See Va ug hn Index at Doc. No. 383. This explanation is not specific to the conte nts of the withheld documents. Even if the Court wer e to conc lude that the titles of the docume nts are adequate to show that the docume nts are pr imarily internal, the g overnme nt must st ill prove that disclosure may

risk circ umvention of ag ency regulation. See Robinson v. Attorney Gene ral, 534 F. Supp. 2d at 80 (c iting Crooker v. BA TF, 670 F .2d 1051, 1053 (D.C. Cir. 1981)). The g o v e r n m e n tm ak e s n o e f

f o rtt o d o s o i nth e V a

u g h nIn d e x o r

a c c o mp an yi n ga f

f i d av i t s . It there fore has not met its burden to justify withholding. See id. at 80 (findingag ency ’s “conc lusory

statements of the r isk of harm” inadequate to justify withholding under

the hig h 2 exemption).
2. Ex emption 5

Ex emption 5 of the F OIA protec ts from disclosure “ inter-a g ency or intra- ag ency memorandums or le tters which would not be a vailable by

law to a pa

rty . . . in liti g ation with the ag ency .” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5) . This provision applies to materials that normally are privileg ed in the civil discovery

context, including those protec ted by the attorne y

work produc t privileg e, the attorne y -client privileg e, and the deliberative proce ss privileg e. See N L RB v. Sear s, Roebuck15

& Co. , 4 21 U. S. 1 32 , 1 49 (1 97 5) ; se e a lso F TC v . G ro lie r, Inc ., 46 2 U .S. 19 , 2 6 ( 19 83 ) ( “ Th e te st under Exemption 5 is whether the doc uments would be ‘r outinely ’ or ‘ normally ’ disclosed upon a showingof re levanc e.”) ; Martin v. Offic e of Spec ial Counsel, 819 F.2d 1181, 1184 (D .C. Cir. 1987) (same). As with all F OIA exemptions, Ex emption 5 is construed nar rowly , see Depa rtment of the Interior a

nd Bur eau of

Indian Aff

airs v. Klamath Water User s Protective As s’ n, 53 2 U .S. 1, 8 ( 20 01 ), and the burd e n is on

the a g e nc y

inv ok ingExe mpt ion

5 to “ e sta

bli sh its right to withhold evidence from the public . . . . [C] onclusory asser tions of privileg e will not suffice to car

ry the ag ency ’s burde n.” Senate of the Commonwealth of Puer to Rico v. United States Dep’t of

J ustice, 823 F .2d 574, 585 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (inter nal quotation omitted). DHS has withheld some thirty pag es of doc uments in whole or in par t based on Ex emption 5. I ts withholdi ng s under Exemption 5 fall into two gene ral c ateg ories: (1) those that it asserts ar e prote cted by either the attorney -client or attorney work produc t privileg es, and (2) those that it asserts are protec ted by the deliber ative proc ess privileg e. It is not alway s clea r which privileg e it asser

ts with respec t to indivi dual documents. DH S provides a g ener al explanation for all documents withheld unde r Exemption 5 t he first time it invokes the exemption. S ee V aug hn Index at Doc. Nos. 231-32. F ollowing the g ener al explanation of Ex emption 5 withholding, individual documents which DH S has withheld under the e x emption
rec eive summary

explanations. Ty

pically , for doc uments entitled “I CE Trial Attorney Wor ks he e ts, ” DH S sta

te s o nly that “ [t]he se do c ume nts are be ingwi thh e ld i n f ull , p ur su ant t o FOIA exemption (b)(5), f or the re asons cited in Doc ument 231, above.” See Va ug hn Index at Doc Nos. 528- 30.16 Whil e an a g e nc y

ne e d n ot r e pe at it se lf

wh e n it s w ithho ldi ng s “ imp lic ate the same exemption for simi lar re asons,” it may not simpl y

explain it self by

“g ener alities.” Judi cial W at ch , In c. v . FD A, 4 4 9 F. 3 d at1 4 7
. DH S d o es n o tp ro v i d e e x p l an at i o n s fo r i t s wi th h o l d i n gs under Exemption 5 that are ta ilored to the conte nt of the individual documents. DHS ar g ues that the de sc ri pti on

of the do c ume nt i s a de qu ate to d e du c e the a pp lic a bil ity of the e xemp tio n. Whil e an entr y like “E-ma il Correspondenc e betwe en I CE Attorney s and Employ ees,” see V aug hn In d e x atD o c . N o . 5 3 1 , c e rt a i n l y might contain attorne y -client privileg ed information, without some descr iption of the contents of the e mail, neither the Court nor the plaintiff ca n conclude with any cer tainty that it does. Other doc ument descr iptions are eve n vaguer, se e Va ug hn Index at Doc. N o. 442 (“Me morandum of Investig ation”), a nd, without more, are inadequate to justify withholding. See Judicial Watch, Inc. v. F DA, 449 F .3d at 152 (“ Terms like ‘f ax’ and ‘q& a’ standing alone g ive the cour t no way to determine whether

the withheld information is of a deliberative nature .”).

DH S’ s f a ilure to i nc lud e the date s o f t he do c ume nts or

the ir a uth or s o r r e c ipi e nts
make s it e ve n mo re dif

fi c ult fo r t he Court to d e te rm ine wh e the r E xemp tio n 5 wa s a pp ro pr iate ly applied to documents that DH S asserts wer e pre decisional. “ The identity of the pa rties to the
me mor and

um i s im po rt ant; a do c ume nt f

ro m a su bo rd inate to a

su pe ri or of fi c ia l is mor e lik e ly

to be pr e de c isi on a l, whil e a

do c ume nt m ov ingin t

he op po sit e dir e c tio n is mor e lik e ly to c on ta in instructions to staff explaining the r easons f or a de cision alrea dy

made.” Morley

v. CI A, 508 F.3d 1108, 1127 ( D.C. Cir. 2007) (quoting Coastal States Gas, 617 F .2d at 868)). Similarly , a document ca

n only be “pr edec isional” if “it was g ener ated be fore the adoption of a

n ag ency policy ,” a de termination which the Court or the plaintiff ca n make only

by knowingthe date of17

the document. Judicial W atch, Inc. v. F DA, 449 F .3d at 151 (e mphasis added) (quotations
o m i t t ed ). W h i l e t h e f

ai l ure t o i n cl u d e d at es d o es n o tal wa y s m ea nth e E x em p t i o n5 wi th h o l d i n gs
are ina de qu ate ly

e xpla ine d, the a g e nc y

mus t “ ill us tr ate a

c hr on olo g y ” in s ome wa y in o rd e r t o justify prede cisional withholdings. See id. at 151. The Court conc ludes that DHS’s explanation of its withholdings under E x emption 5 is inadequate.
3. Ex emption 7(E) Ex emption 7(E) prote cts from disclosure rec ords or infor mation compiled for law enfor ceme nt purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enfor ceme nt rec ords or information “would disclose technique s and proc edure s for lawenfor ceme nt investigations or pr os e c uti on s, or

wo uld dis c los e g uid e lin e s f

or law e nf or c e me nt i nv e sti g atio ns or pr os e c uti on s if
su c h d isc los ur e c ou ld r e a so na bly be e xpe c te d to ri sk

c ir c umv e nti on

of the law. ” 5 U .S. C. § 552(b)( 7)(E) ; see L ongv. United States Dep’ t of J ustice, 450 F . Supp. 2d at 79.

Pursuant to exempti on 7(E), D HS withheld the following cate g ories of information: (1) intra -ag ency emails (applied to a

sy stems chec k result); (2) continuation pag es of For m I -213, Recor d of De portable A lien; (3) ca se status computer pr intout screens; a nd (4) F orm G-600A Investig ation Preliminary Worksheet. See De f. Mot., Memorandum of Points and Autho ri tie s in

Sup po rt at 29 . In c on

jun c tio n w ithits de sc ri pti on of the fi rs t do c ume nt w ithhe ld pursuant to exemption 7(E), DHS provided a g ener alized expl anation for withholding. See Va ug hn Ind e x at D oc . 4 02 . Y e t w ithre g ard to t he ind ivi du a l w ithho ldi ng s, DH S pr ov ide s a lmo st no descr iption of the material withheld. See , e.g . Vaughn Index at Doc. No. 438 (“ Continuation pa g e of F or m I -2 13 , Re c or d o f D e po rt a ble Al ie n” — “ Th is d oc ume nt i s a lso be ingwi thh e ld i nPlaintiff does not challeng e def endant’ s withholdings under Ex emptions 6 or 4 7(C). 18 part with exemption (b)(7)( E) for the re asons cited with re spect to Doc ument 402, above” ); Doc. No . 5 63 (“ F or

m G -6 00 A Inv e sti g atio n Pr e lim ina ry Wor ks he e t” — “ wi thh e ld i n f ull purs ua nt t o F OIA e xemp tio ns . . . ( b) (7 )( E) . T he se e xemp tio ns are be inga pp lie d f or the re a so ns c ite d in Documents . . . 402, a

bove, re spectively .”). When a Vaughn Index only

rec ites the languag e of the statute and doe s not ex plain “why the re lease of the infor

mation would compromise law enfor ceme nt by , for e x ample, re vealinginvestigatory techniques that are not widely known to the g ener al public” with at lea st some specificity , it is i nadequate to justify withholding under Ex emption 7(E). B oy d v. BA TF, Civil Action No. 05-1096, 2006 U.S. Dist. L EXI S 71857 at *30 (D.D.C. Sept. 29, 2006) (“ Desc riptions such as ‘tec hniques involving c onsensual monitoring’ . . . a

nd ‘investig ative tec hniques,’ . . . alone are inadequate.”)
. Unlike the other

documents withheld pursua nt to Ex emption 7(E), DH S provides some explanation for withholding a part of D ocument No. 402 — the sy stems chec k result — for the first time in its reply

brief, e x plaining that the reda ction “is the name of the sy stem that USCI S used to determine that Plaintiff did not apply for a sylum as he indicate d in interviews with immi g ration off

icials.” See Def

. Rep. at 14. Even if

the Court could consider explanations fo r w ithho ldi ngc on ta ine d in the su pp le me nta l br ie fi ng , r athe r t ha n in the Va ug hn Ind e x an d/o r i n aff idavits or decla

rations, this ex planation still does not inform the Court why disclosure of the
nameof the sy ste m w ou ld “ re a so na bly be e xpe c te d to ri sk

c ir c umv e nti on

of the law. ” 5 U .S. C. § 552(b)( 7)(E) . Def

endant ha s not met its burden to justi fy withholding mater ial under Ex emption 7(E). 419 4. Se g re g a

bil ity I f a re c or d c on ta ins inf

or matio n th at is e xemp t f

ro m di sc los ur e , a

ny re a so na bly seg reg able infor

mation must be relea sed af ter de leting the exempt portions, unl ess the
no ne xemp t po rt ion s are ine xtri c a bly int e rt wi ne d w ithe xemp t po rt ion s. Se e Tr ans -P a c if ic Policing Agree ment v. United States Customs S ervic e, 177 F .3d 1022, 1027 (D.C. Cir. 1999); Def ender s of Wildl ife v. United States B order Patrol, 623 F. Supp. 2d at 90 (c iting Salas v. Offic e of the Inspector G en., 577 F . Supp. 2d 105, 112-113 (D.D.C. 2008); 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). “To withhold the entire ty of a doc ument, DHS ‘must demonstrate [to the Court] that it cannot seg reg ate the e x empt materia l from the non-e x empt and must disclose as much a s possible.’” Def ender s of Wildl ife v. United States B order Patrol, 623 F. Supp. 2d at 90 (quotingHer tzberg v. Vene man, 273 F. Supp. 2d at 90)
.

Havingwithheld numerous docume nts in full or in part, DHS’s only explanation as to how it met the seg reg ability require ment is the statement in Mr. Welsh’s initi al dec laration that “USCI S has now rele ased a ll reasona bly seg reg able por

tions of documents to Plainti ff. . . .” Se e Wel shDe c l. ¶

13 . T his state me nt i s in a de qu ate to m e e t D HS’ s b ur de n w ithre g ard to seg reg ability

beca use it does not show with rea sonable spec ificity why the documents c annot be further seg reg ated a

nd additional portions disclosed. See De fende rs of Wildli fe v. United States Bor der Patrol, 623 F . Supp. 2d at 91 (quoting H ertzbergv. Vene man, 273 F. Supp. 2d at 90- 91). “[F]or each entry

the def endant is re quired to ‘spe cify in detail which portions of the doc ument
are disclosable and which ar e alleg edly exempt.’” Def

ender s of Wildl ife v. United States B order Patrol, 623 F. Supp. 2d at 90 (quotingWil derne ss Soc’y v. Dep’ t of Interior, 344 F . Supp. 2d at 19) (e mphasis in origina l).20 Ac c or din g ly , th e Court

c on c lud e s th at de fe nd ant h a s f a ile d to jus tif

y its withholdings under

Ex emptions 2, 5, and 7(E) a nd has not met its burden to show that it has dis c los e d a ll r e a so na

bly se g re g a ble inf or matio n. De fe nd ant m

us t e ith e r r e le a se the wi thh e ld documents or pr oduce a

leg ally adequate Vaughn Index.
I V. ATTORNEY S’ FEES Plaintiff moves for attorney s’ fe es pursua nt to FOIA’s re cently

amende d fe e -s hif tin gpr ov isi on , whic h p ro vid e s atto rn e y s’ fe e s f or c omp la ina

nts wh o h ave “ su

bs tanti a lly preva iled.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a) (4)( E)(i). Acomplainant is dee med to have substantially preva iled if he ob ta ine d r e lie f t

hr ou g h e ith e r “ a

jud ic ia l or de r . . . ” or

“ a vo luntary

or un ilate ra l c ha

ng e in po sit ion by the a g e nc y

if the c omp la ina

nt’ s c la im i s n ot i ns ub sta

nti a l.” 5 U .S. C. § 552(a) (4)( E)(ii). Plaintiff ar g ues that DHS voluntarily and unilater ally

chang ed its position on
ov e r h a lf of the do c ume nts wi thh e ld whe n it re le a se d 5 8 o f t

he pr e vio us ly

wi thh e ld d oc ume nts in their entire ty

and 38 re dacte d pag es on F ebrua ry 19, 2008 — afte r commenc ement of the action and immediately

befor e movingfor summary judgme nt. I n response , defe ndant ar g ues that pla int if f’ s mo tio n is pr e matur e , th at pl a int if f h a s n ot e sta

bli sh e d h is e nti tle me nt t o atto rn e y s’ f e e s , an d th atth e p r o v i s i o n s o f

th e am e n d e d

f e e - s h i f t i n gp r o v i s i o nd o n o ta

p p l y r e tr o a c t i v e l y . In light of the Court’s conclusion that, at this stag e, fina l judgment is not appropr iate for either party , and bec ause pla intiff has not articulated any need f or an inter im awar d of fe es, the Court conclude s that plaintiff’s attorne y s’ fe es motion is premature.21 V. CONCLUSI ON For these re asons, the Court by Orde r of Septembe r 30, 2009 g rante d defe ndant’s motion for summary

judgme nt in part, denied it in part without pre judice, and de nied plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgme nt without prejudice.
/s/_____________________ PAULL . FRI EDMAN Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge DATE: De cembe r 18, 2009