Plaintiff’s claims ag ainst all other def endants ha

ve bee n resolved. SeeOrde r of 1 Dec ember

22, 2008 (g rantingsummary judgme nt to the Fede ral B urea u of Investig ation); Orde r of August 4, 2008 (g rantingsummary judgme nt to the United States Marshals Servic e and I mmigration and Customs Enforc ement). SeeOrde r of July

30, 2009 (advisingplaintiff about his obligation to respond to BOP’s 2 motion by

Aug ust 31, 2009, and of the c onsequenc es if he did not); Minute Or der of August 31, 2009 (g rantingplaintiff’s motion to enlarg e the r esponse time to September 15, 2009). 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 Mic ha e l C. An ton e lli , : : Plaintiff, : v. : Civil Action No. 07-2016 ( CKK) : F e de ra l B ur e a

u o f P ri so ns e t al
. , :

: De fe nd ants . :

MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON I n what re mains of this Fre edom of Information Ac t (“F OIA”) case , the B urea u of Prisons (“B OP”) ha s supplemented the r ecor d with evidence that further explains i ts justi fication for
w i t h h o l d i n g c e rt a i nr e c o r d s i nt h e i r e n t i r e ty. SeeOrde r of June 9, 2009 [Dkt. No. 75] and

1
acc ompanying Me morandum Opinion (“Me m. Op.”) [Dkt. No. 76] at 6-8. Pending be fore the Court is BOP’s re newe d motion for summary judgme nt or, in the alternative, for a n in c am e ra re vie w o f t

he do c ume nts a t is su e . Pl a int if f, wh o is no str ang e r t o li tig a tin g F OIA a c tio ns in t his Court , h a s n ot o pp os e d th e mot ion de sp ite the Court ’s a dv ise me nts . Th e Court the re fo re tr e a ts 2 BO P’s rene wed motion for summary judgme nt as conc eded. See I n re Miller , 2004 WL 963819, 1 (D.C. Cir., May

4, 2004) (In manag ing its docke t under the c ircumstance s prese nted, “the c ourt may choose to . . . re solve the motion for summary judgme nt on the merits without an opposition2

. . . o r [] tr e a t summa

ry jud g me nt a s c on c e de d. ” ); FDIC v. Be nder , 127 F.3d 58, 67 ( D.C. Cir. 1997) (f inding no a

buse of discr etion in Court’s enforc ement of loc al rule by “tre at[ing] the FDI C's motion for summary judgme nt as conc eded” ). Notwithstanding the fore g oing disposition, the Court must determine whethe r B OP proper ly withheld rec ords in their entire ty . SeeM em . Op
. at 7 -8 (c i t i n g Trans-Pacific Policing Agreem ent v. United States Customs Serv ice , 177 F.3d 1022, 1027- 28 (D.C. Cir. 1999)). Of the 12 previously

withheld rec ords, B OP has now dete rmined that two-- a one- pag e staff
me mor and

um d a te d Jun e 16 , 2 00 5, and a on e -p a g e dr awi ng -- c an b e re le a se d; t he latte r i n it s e nti re ty and the fo rm e r i n p art . Se c on d Su pp le me nta l D e c laratio n o f K are n Summe rs in Response to the Court’s Memora ndum Opinion of J une 9, 2009 [Dkt. No. 78-3] at 2, nn.1, 2. Ba sed on Summers’s desc riptions of the rema ining 10 r ecor ds withheld in full, her cor relation of the information they

contain with ea ch cla imed exemption, id . ¶¶ 14- 21; 25-28, and he r sworn statement that followingrevie w of the infor mation “for se g rea

bility [,] [i ]t was de termined that . . . no [additi onal] meaning ful portions could rea sonably be re lease d,” id

¶ 31, the Court is satisfied that BO P has now rele ased a ll reasona bly seg reg able r esponsive re cords. F ind ingno g e nu ine iss ue of mate ri a l f

a c t r e ma ini nga s to B OP’ s sa tis fa c tio n o f i ts disclosure oblig ations under the F OI A, the Court conc ludes that BO P is now entitl ed to judg ment
as a matter of law . A sepa rate final Orde r ac companies this Memora ndum Opinion. __________s/s__________________ C O LLE E N K O LLA R
- K O T E LLY DA T E : Oc t o b er

6 , 2 0 0 9 Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ct J u d ge