T h e re c o rd in this c a se c o n ta ine d va ryin g sp e lli n g s o f P la intiff’s f irst n a m e . C o mp a re Compl ai n t f or 1 D e c la ra to ry a n d In

ju n c tive R e lief (“C o m p la int” ) (D o c u m e n t N o . 1 ) a t 1 , w ith id
. ¶ 1, andAmen ded Compl ai n t f or D e c la ra to ry a n d In

ju n c tive R e lief (“A m e n d e d C o m p la int” ) (D o c u m e n t N o . 2 2 ) a t 1 , andP l ai nt i f f Al s eny B en B ang our a’ s M ot i on f

or Su mm ar y Ju dgment ( “ P l ai nt i f f’ s M ot i on”) ( D ocument N o. 41) at1. T he un ders i gn ed id e n tif ie d P la intiff

he re in u sin g the sp e lli n g c o n ta ine d in the c a p tio n o f t h e S e c o n d A m e n d e d C o m p la int. See Sec o nd A m e n d e d C o m p la int fo r D e c la ra to ry a n d In ju n c tive R e lief (“S e c o n d A m e n d e d C o m p la int” ) (D o c u m e n t N o . 3 7 ) a t 1
. AL SENY BEN B ANGOURA, Plaintiff,
v . UNI TED S TAT ES DEP AR TM ENT OF THE ARMY, Def endant. UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STRI CT C OURT

F O R T H E D IS T RIC TO F C O LU M B IA

Civil Action No. 05-0311

DAR

M EM OR

AN DU MOP IN ION In this action, Alseny

Be n Ba ng oura (“Plaintiff” ), pursua nt to the Fre edom of 1 Information Ac t (“F OIA”) , 5 U.S.C. § 552, challeng es the re sponses of the United States Depa rtment of the Ar

my (“D efe ndant”) to his FOIA re quests. Pending f or dete rmination by

the undersigned United States Mag istrate Judge a re D efe ndant’s Motion to Dismis s or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment (Doc ument No. 23) a nd Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc ument No. 41). By an orde r ente red on Ma

rch 31, 2009 upon c onsideration of the motions; the memoranda

in support thereof

and in opposition thereto, and the e ntire re cord he rein,B ang oura

v. Un ite d St ate s D e pa

rtme nt o f t

heAr my 2 Def endant’ s motion t o dismiss or in the alter native for summary judgme nt was grante d and Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgme nt was denie d. The finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law in support of said order f ollow.
I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed the instant action see king a n order , pursuant to the F OIA, for the “produc tion of any

and all materials and information within the possession of the Military Police Un it o f t heMil ita ry Di stric t of

Was hin gton

(“ Mil ita ry Pol ic e Un it” ), re g arding[Pla int if f’ s] arr e st and dete ntion . . . on October 28, 2004 at . . . the State Depa rtment Fe dera l Credit Union in . . . Washington, D.C.” Sec ond Amended Complaint ¶¶ 1- 2, 5. Plaintiff sought doc uments that included “w itness interviews at the c redit union and a ny base ba nning orders issued by

the Police unit.” Id . ¶ 2. In his Second Amende d Complaint, P laintiff alleg ed that on Nove mber 15, 2004, his attorney

sent a F OIA re quest “to the Military Police Unit of the Military District of Washington see king therele ase of any and all materials and information within the possession of the Military

Police reg arding[hi s] arrest[.] ” Id . ¶ 41. Plaintiff furthe r alleg ed that he did not
r e c e i v e any

m at e r i a l s i nr e s p o n s e t o h i s N o v e mb e r 1 5 r e qu e s t , an d

th at , h e s e nta

s e c o n d F O IA reque st on Dece mber 13, 2004. Id . ¶¶ 41- 42. On August 18, 2005, more than six months after Plaintiff initi ated this litigation, the United States Ar my Crime Records Cente r (“ USARC”) produce d a five -pag e “r eport”with reda ctions pertainingto Plainti ff’ s detention. See id. ¶ 51. Plaintiff alleg ed that on September 15, 2005, “a third infor

mation reque st was submitted to the USARC seekingrec ords of the c all to the Milit ary Police made by

the bank mana g er, c opies of the alleg edly

fra udulent chec ks and information reg ardingthe ar rest of Mr . J ohn[,] [P laintiff’sB ang oura

v. Un ite d St ate s D e pa

rtme nt o f t

heAr my 3 landlord][ .]” Id . ¶ 54. On Oc tober 18, 2005, Plaintiff re ceive d copies of thealleg ed fr audulent chec ks, but did not receiveany documents with respe ct to “Mr. John’s arre st or Mr. J ohn’s prese nce a s a witness to [P laintiff’s] alleg ed ar rest and de tention at the State Depa rtment Fe dera l Credit Union.” Id . ¶ 57. Plaintiff alleg ed that on F ebrua ry 15, 2006, duringa status conf ere nce, he re ceive d a thre e-pa g e docume nt “consisting of the notes of [Plainti ff’ s] i nterrog ation” from “[a] represe ntative of the D epar tment of Justice[.] ” Id . ¶ 62. Plaintiff furthe r alleg ed that on Marc h 14, 2006, he sent “ another letter re questingfurther

documentation from the USARC[ .]” Id . ¶ 64 . Pl a int if

f a lle g e d th at U SAR C lo c ate d a nd pr od uc e d th e “ ‘D a ily

Sta ff Jour na l or Duty Offic ers L og ’ and a

CI D [(“Criminal Investig ation Command”)] ‘Ag ent’s Ac tivity Summary .’” Id . ¶¶ 65 - 66. As relief , Plaintiff, in his second amende d complaint reque sted the cour t to “[d] ecla

re that theMil ita ry Pr ov os t’ s r e fu sa l to re sp on d to there c ords wi thi n th e mand ator y statut or y pe ri od is an unlawf ul violation of FOIA[] ” ( id . ¶ 78 ); “ [d]e c larethat th e De fe nd ant f a ile d to a de qu ate ly
arti c u latea

b a s is f o r th e F O IAe xe mp ti o n s a s s e rte d b y n o t c o mp ly

in gw it hV a u ghnv [. ] R o s e n []” ( id . ¶ 79); “[d]eclarethat the Def endant’ s assertions of e x emptions claimed under b(2), b( 6), b( 7) (c ) a nd thePriva c y

Ac t e xemp tio n 5 5( a )(

j) (2 ) i n th e re da c te d d oc ume nts pr ov ide d to [P laintiff] was unfounded[]” ( id . ¶ 80 ); “ [d]e c larethat th e De fe nd ant v iol ate d F OIA f a ili ngto conduct a n adequa te sea rch f or docume nts requeste d by [P laintiff][ ]” ( id . ¶ 81), a nd “[d] irec t Def endant to makeall reque sted rec ords ava ilable to [P laintiff] unredac ted without any further delay and to explain the absenc e of c erta in documents and re cords that should havebeen prepa red unde r applica

ble re gulations and proce dures.” Id . ¶ 82.B ang oura

v. Un ite d St ate s D e pa

rtme nt o f t

heAr my 4

D e fen d a n t also m o v e d to d ism iss P la intiff’s cla im s a g a ins t t h e ind ivid u a l d e fen d a n ts. S e e id . at 9 -1 0 ; s ee 2 a lso Amen ded Compl ai n t ¶ ¶ 6- 8. H owe v er , on O ct ober 24, 2006, t h e u n der s i g n ed g r an t ed Pl ai n t i f f’ s M ot i on f

or L e a v e to F ile a S e c o n d A m e n d e d C o m p la int ( s ee O ct o b er 24 , 20 0 6 M i nut e O rder), i n whi ch P l ai nt i f f did no t al l ege a n y c la im s a g a ins t i n d ivid u a l go v e rn m e n t o ff ic ia ls. See Second Am ended Co mp l ai nt ¶ 6. T hu s , t he un ders i gn ed find s D e fen d a n t’s m o tio n to d ism iss P la intiff’s cla im s a g a ins t t h e ind ivid u a ls na m e d a s d e fen d a n ts is m o o t.

Pl ai nt i f

f , on Ju l y 17, 200 6, i ni t i al l y opp ose d D ef endan t ’ s mo t i on wi t h h i s own c r oss mo t i on f or par t i al 3 su m m a ry j u d g m e n t. See P la intiff’s C ro ss M o tio n fo r P a rtia l S u m m a ry J u d g m e n t (D o c u m e n t N o . 2 5 ). In it , P la intiff m o v e d fo r p a rtia l sum m a ry j u d g m e n t with re sp e c t t o C o u n t O n e
– D e fen d a n t’s alle g e d “fail[u re ] to re sp o n d to [P la intiff’s] F O IA re q u e st in the re q u isite sta tuto ry tim e p e rio d [,]”

– a n d C o u n t T w o D e fen d a n t’s alle g e d “fail[u re ] to provi de a Vaughn i ndex as i ns t r uct ed by t he prec edent i n t hi s cour t . ” I d. ¶ ¶ 1, 5. Ad di t i onal l y , on t he s ame dat e, P l ai nt i f f m o ved t o “ st ay [consi d erat i o n of D ef end ant ’ s] Sum m ary Jud gm ent [mo t i o n] .
. . wi t h regard t o C o unt Fo ur of t he Second Am ended Co mp l ai nt [ s i c] pendi ng [ l ] eav e t o [s ] eek [ d]i s cover y . ” See P l ai nt i f f’ s M ot i on t o St ay Summ ar y Ju dgment U nder 56(f ) P endi ng Leav e t o Seek D i s cover y ( “ P l ai nt i f f’ s 56(f ) mo t i on”) ( D ocument N o. 26) at 1
. T h e un d e rs ign e d gr a n te d P la intiff’s m o tio n to sta y su m m a ry j u d g m e n t co n sid e ra tio n a n d p e rm itt e d P la intiff to tak e li m ited d isc o v e ry o n the a d e q u a c y o f D e fen d a n t’s sea rc h
. See D ecem b er 8, 2 0 0 6 M em o randum O p i ni o n and O rd e r (D o c u m e n t N o . 3 8 ). A t t h e c o n c lus io n o f t h e li m ited d isc o v e ry p e rio d , t h e un d e rs ign e d p e rm itt e d P la intiff to II. CO NT EN TIO NS O FTHE P ARTIES De fe nd ant m ov e d p ur su ant t o Ru le 12 (b )( 6) of theF e de ra l Ru le s o f C ivi l Pr oc e dureto dismiss the instant action for failureto state a c laim upon which re lief ca n be grante d or, alternatively , pursuant to Rule 56 of the F ederal Rules of Civil P roce dure f or summary

judgme nt,
asser ting that “ g ood faith sea

rch e ffor ts wereemployed to locateany rec ords about [P] laintiff and theinv e sti g atio n c on du c te d o n O c tob e r 2 8, 20 04
. . . a nd that 15 pa g e s o f r e sp on siv e do c ume nts
wer e re lease d[] ” with re dactions which a re “ justified under F OIA exemptions [ 5 U.S.C. § 552] (b)( 2), (b) (6), a

nd (b)( 7)(C).”Def

endant’ s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Def endant’ s Motion to Dis miss or for Summary Judgment (“D efe ndant’s Memora ndum”) (D oc ume nt N o. 23 -2 ) at 25 ; se eals o id . at 13 -2 4. In s up po rt of its mot ion , D e fe nd ant a lso
asser ted that thereis no cause of action cr eate d by

an ag ency ’s fa ilure to timely respond to a F OIA r e qu e st (se eid . at 10-11), a nd that the obliga

tion for an a g ency

to provide a Vaughn Index arises only

upon the filingof a summar y judgme nt motion. Id . at 11-12. 2 Plaintiff opposed Def

endant’ s motion and cross-moved f or summary

judgme nt. Plaintiff

3B ang oura

v. Un ite d St ate s D e pa

rtme nt o f t

heAr my 5

fil e a n o the r c ro ss m o tio n fo r su m m a ry j u d g m e n t an d to su p p le m e n t his o p p o sitio n to D e fen d a n t’s m o tio n . See F e b ru a ry 7 , 2 0 0 7 M inu te E n try. P la intiff a g a in m o v e d fo r su m m a ry j u d g m e n t ( s ee P la intiff A lse n y B e n B a n g o u ra ’s M o tio n fo r S u m m a ry J u d g m e n t (“P la intiff’s M o tio n ” ) (D o c u m e n t N o . 4 1 )) a n d inc o rp o ra te d his p re v io u s a rg u m e n ts wi t h r es pec t t o Coun t s O n e an d T wo. Con s equ en t l y , t h e u n der s i g n ed den i ed Pl ai n t i f f’ s i n i t i al c r os s mot i on f or p a rtia l sum m a ry j u d g m e n t as m o o t. See M a rc h 1 8 , 2 0 0 9 M inu te O rd e r. contende d Def

endant’ s failed to: (1) r espond to [P laintiff’s] “initial FOIA re quest duringthe
mand ator y 20 da y sta tut or y tim e pe ri od

fo r F OIA r e qu e sts []” ( Pla int if f’ s Me mor and

um o f P oints and Authorities in Support of Plaintiff’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (“Plaintiff’s Memorandum” ) (Doc ument No. 41-3) at 4); (2) providea Vaughn ind e x or e qu iva le nt t o “identify the abunda

nt and ambiguous reda ctions in a sy stematic manne r[] ” ( id . at 6); (3) provide
a “ su ff ic ie nt b a sis to a sse rt

any e xemp tio ns ” fo r t

here sp on siv e inf

or matio n w ithhe ld p ur su ant t o 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(2), (b)(6) , and (b) (7)( C) (see id. at 7-13); ( 4) conduc t an ade quate se arc h “‘r easona bly calc ulated’ to produc e re levant docume nts[ ]” (se eid . at 16 -2 3) ; and (5 ) t o a c t in g ood faith with respe ct to its searc hes and theproduction of doc uments. Se eid . at 24-27. In the opposition to P laintiff’s motion for summary judgme nt, and the reply

to Plainti ff’ s opposition, Defenda

nt maintained that (1) Plaintiff’ s Second Amende d Complaint shoul d be dismiss ed for

Plaintiff’s failureto send his FOIA re quest to the proper addre ss in accordance wi th Army

re gulatio ns (seeDef

endant’ s Opposition to P laintiff’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Reply

in Support of Defe ndant’s Motion to Dismis s and for Summary

Judgment (“D efe ndant’s Response” ) (Doc ument Nos. 42, 43) at 8- 9); (2) the re is no basis for decla ratory relief for a n ag ency ’s fa ilure to timely respond to a F OIA re quest, and that in any event, “ Plaintiff has re ceive d the re lief to which heis entitled–[ “proc eed[ing ] t o court to see k an orde r compe lling the ag ency

to producethe re quested re cords[]” ( id . at 10)]–for such a violation[ ]” ( id . at 11); (3) it used a “c oded index to satisfy the re quirements of the Vaughn Index[ ,]” in the McGuireB ang oura

v. Un ite d St ate s D e pa

rtme nt o f t

heAr my 6

D ef end ant s up p o rt ed i t s reda ct i o ns wi t h a de cl arat i o n prep ared by P hi l i p J. M cG ui re, t he D i rect o r of t he 4 U n i t ed St at es Ar my Cr i me Rec or d Cen t er ( U SACR C) U
. S. Ar my Cr i mi n al I n v es t i g at i on D i v i s i on a n d s u per v i s or of t h e Fr ee dom of

I n f or mat i on a n d Pr i v ac y ActD i v i s i on a t U SACR C. M cGui r e D ec l ar at i on ¶ 3. See n . 3, su

p ra . 5 decla ration and that the decla

ration explained the F OIA exemptions i nvoked in a manne r that was “ clea r, spec ific and una

mbiguous[] ” ( id
. at1 2 ) ; ( 4 ) i tp r o p e r l y i nv o k e d th e a p p l i c a b l e F O IA 4 exemptions to withhold special ag ent seque nce numbe rs, names of individuals and other persona lly

identifying inf

ormation (se eid . at 13-18); a nd (5) it “c onducted a

rea sonable a

nd adequate sea

rch f or re sponsive rec ords by

employing me thods reasona bly expected to produc e such information as evidenc ed by . . . decla rations . . . and the deposition t estimony [i n the
rec ord][ .]” Id . at 21. Plaintiff, in his reply , asser ted that he wa s entitled to declar atory relief based on D e f e n d ant ’ s “ w e l l
- e s t a

b l i s h e d p att e r no f d e l aye d an d i n e f f e c tu a l r e s p o n s e s t o P l a i nt i f f ’ s F O IA reque sts.” Def

endant’ s Reply

Brief in Support of Plaintiff’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (“Plaintiff’s Reply”) ( Document No. 44) at 4-5. Plaintiff also asse rted that Def endant’ s relianc e on the Mc Guire D ecla ration as a Vaughn index or it s equivalent wa s misplaced. SeePla int if

f’ s Me morand

um o f P oints a

nd Autho ri tie s in

Sup po rt of Pla int if f’ s Cr os s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Motion for L eaveto Seek Discove ry (“Plaintiff’s 5 Partial Summary

Judgment Memorandum” ) (Doc ument No. 30) at 12 (“Thestatement, ‘a ll other reda ctions . . . wereof individual names and/or identifying inf

ormation justified by

Ex emptions b(6) a nd b(7)[(C)]’ leaves [Plaintiff] guessingas to the applica ble exemption.”). Moreove r, Pla int if f s ub mitte d th at D e fe nd ant’ s invo c atio n o f F OIA e xemp tio ns 2, 6, and 7( C) “ un jus tly
r e s tr i c t [ e d ] ” h i s a c c e s s t o i n f o r m at i o nr e l e v antt o h i s r e qu e s t , d i d n o ts u f f i c i e nt l yB ang oura

v. Un ite d St ate s D e pa

rtme nt o f t

heAr my 7 “demonstrate . . . a c lear [] unwar rante d risk to privacy [,] ” and ina dequate ly balanc ed the “public’s inter est in disclosure . . . [and] applicable priva cy interests to . . . rele vant information[.] ” Plaintiff’s Reply at 6. Plaintiff further

submitt ed that De fenda

nt “is not entitled to assert e x emptions under F OIA bec ause D efe ndant continues to ac t in bad faith in responding to Plainti ff’ s reque st.” Id . Plaintiff contended that Defe ndant’s sea rch e ffor ts were“inade quate,
unrea sonable, a

nd misleading [] ” ( id . at 9), g iven Def endant’ s failureto “follow lea ds to uncover responsive doc uments” that we re ide ntified in the materia ls produced to Plaintiff. Id . at 9-13.
III . STAND AR

D O FRE VI EW A. Mo tio n to Di

sm iss Rule 12(b)(6) of the F ederal Rules of Civil P roce dure provides for dismissal of a ple ading for “ failureto state a c laim upon which re lief ca n be grante d.” F ed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). “A Rule 12(b) (6) motion to dismi ss tests the leg al suffic iency of a c omplaint.” Hammond v

. D. C. R e c or

d Ct r. , 5 9 3 F. S u

p p . 2 d 2 4 4 , 2 4 7 (D
. D. C
. 2 0 0 9 ) ( ci t i n g Browning v. Clint on, 292 F.3d 23 5, 24 2 ( D. C. C ir . 2 00 2) ). “ In e va luatin ga Rul e 12 (b )( 6) mot ion

to dism iss
. . . th e c ourt

mus t
c on str uethec omp la int

in a light m os t f

avo ra bleto t heplaint if

f a nd mus t a c c e pt a s tr

uea ll
rea sonable fa ctual infe renc es dra wn from we ll-pleade d fac tual alleg ations.” Citi zens for Responsibility &Ethics in W ashington v. Cheney , 593 F. Supp. 2d 194, 210 (D.D .C. 2009) (c i t i n g In re United M

ine W orkers of Am. Em

ployeeBene

fit Plans L itig. , 854 F. Supp. 914, 915 (D .D .C. 19 94 )) . Wh e n, on a Rul e 12 (b )( 6) mot ion , “ matte rs outsi detheple a din garepr e se nte d to and not excluded by

the cour t, the motion mus t be treated as onefor summary judgme nt under Rul e 56 . A ll p art ie s sh a ll b e g ive n r e a so na bleop po rt

un ity to p re se nt a ll themate ri a l th at isB ang oura

v. Un ite d St ate s D e pa

rtme nt o f t

heAr my 8 pe rt ine nt t o th e mot ion .”F e d. R.C iv. P. 1 2( d) ; see W illiams v. Dodaro, 576 F. Supp. 2d 72, 80 (D.D.C. 2008). B. Motion for Summary Judgm ent Pur su ant t o F e de ra l Ru le of Civ il Proc e dure56 (c ), summa ry judgme nt i s a

pp ro priate if theple a din g s o n f

ile , to g e the r w iththea ff

ida vit s, if any , s ho w that th e reis n o g e nu ineiss uea s to any materia l fac t and that the movingparty is entitled to judgment as a matter of la

w. Fe d.R.Civ.P . 56(c) . Materia l fac ts are thosethat “might affe ct the outcome of the suit under the g overninglaw.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, I nc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Theparty seeking summary judgme nt bear s the initial burden of de monstrating a n absenc e of g enuine issue of materia l fac t. Ce lote

xCor p. v . Ca tre tt, 47 7 U .S. 31 7, 32 2 ( 19 86 ); Tao v. Freeh, 27 F.3d 635, 638 (D.C. Cir. 1994). In consideringwhether thereis a triable issue of

fac t, the court must draw all rea sonable infe renc es in favor of the non-movingparty . Id. In a dd iti on , L oc a l Civ il Ru le 7( h) pr ov ide s: Ea c h mo tio n f

or summa ry judgme nt s ha ll b e a c c omp anie d b y a state me nt of material fac ts as to which the movingparty contends ther e is no g enuine issue, which shall include r efe renc es to the par ts of the re cord r elied on to support the statement. An opposition to such a motion shall be acc ompanied by

a sepa rateconcisestatement of g enuine issues setting forth all material fac ts as to which it is contended ther e exists a ge nuine iss uene c e ssa

ry to b e lit ig ate d, wh ic h s ha ll i nc lud e re fe re nc e s to thepa rt s of the re cord r elied on to support the stateme nt . . . In d ete rm inin g a m otion f or sum m ary judgm ent, the c ourt m ay assumethat facts identif ied by the m oving p arty in its state m ent of m ater ial f acts ar e adm itted, unless su ch a fact is controver ted in the state m ent of ge nuineiss ue s file d in o ppos it ion to th e m ot ion . L CvR 7( h) (e mph a sis su

pp lie d) ; se eals o L CvR 56.1. Th e Di stric t of

Columb ia

Cir c uit ha s h e ld t

hat “ [i]f thepa

rt y op po sin gthemot ion

fails to comply with this l ocal r

ule, then ‘thedistrict court is under no oblig ation to sift through theB ang oura

v. Un ite d St ate s D e pa

rtme nt o f t

heAr my 9
rec ord’ a nd should ‘[i ]nst ead . . . de em as a dmitted the moving par ty ’s fa cts that are uncontrove rtedby

the nonmoving pa

rty ’s Rule [L CvR 7(h)] st atement.’ ” Securities and Ex ch. Comm’n v. B anner Fund Int’l , 211 F. 3d 602, 616 ( D.C. Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). The District of Columbia Circuit “[has] explained . . . that the ‘the proc edurecontemplated by the [l ocal] rule. . . isolates the f acts that the pa

rties asser t aremateria l, disti nguishes disputed from undisputed fac ts, and identifies the pe rtinent parts of therec ord.’” Bu rk ev . Gou ld, 286 F. 3d 5 1 3 , 5 1 7 (D
. D. C
. 2 0 0 2 ) ( qu o t i n g Gardels v. CIA , 6 37 F . 2 d 7 70 , 7 73 (D .C. Cir . 1 98 0) ). Th is circ uit has aff

irmed the grant of summar y judgme nt wherethe nonmoving pa rty failed to c ite any evidenc e in the re cord, a

nd in the statement of g enuine f actua l issues, “did not set forth spec ific,
mate ri a l f a c ts, but si mpl y

a sse rt e d, wi tho ut c iti nge vid e nc e in t here c ord, that th e rewa s a disputed issue[.] ” Burke , 2 8 6 F. 3 d at5 1 8 (qu o t i n g Tarpley v. Gre ene , 684 F. 2d 1, 7 ( D.C. Cir. 1982)).
C. Freedom of Information Act ( “FOIA ”) “F OIA provides a

‘statutory

right of public ac cess to docume nts and rec ords’ he ld by fede ral g overnme nt ag encie s.” Citi zens for Responsibility &Ethics in W ashington v. U.S. Dep’ t of Justice , No
. C IV. A. 0 5 -2 0 7 8 , 2 0 0 9 W L6 4 9 6 9 9 , at* 1 (D
. D. C
. M ar . 1 6 , 2 0 0 9 ) ( qu o t i n g Pratt v. W ebster , 6 73 F .2 d 4 08 , 4 13 (D .C. Cir . 1 98 2) ). F OIA r e qu ir e s th at f e de ra l a g e nc ie s c omp ly

wi th reque sts to make their re cords a vailable to the public, unless suc h “information is ex empted under [one of nine ] clearly delineate d statutory

languag e.” Id . (interna l quotation marks omi tte d) ; se eals o 5 U.S.C. § 552(a), (b) . A district court ha s jurisdiction to enjoin the ag ency from withholding r ecords and to order the produc tion of any

rec ords improperly

withheld fromBa

ng oura v. United States Depa rtment of the Ar

my 10

In Co unt O ne o f

hi s Se co nd A m end ed C o m p l ai nt , P l ai nt i f f s o ught a de cl arat o ry judgm ent t hat D ef end ant 6 f ai l ed t o r es pon d t o h i s N ov embe r 15, 2004 FOIA r equ es t “ t o [ t h e] M i l i t ar y Pol i ce U n i t of t h e M i l i t ar y D i s t r i ctof the re quester a

nd to review de novo the withholding of information pursuant to an e x emption. See5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4) (B ). The a g ency has the burde n to show that “ea ch disputed withholding
or re daction [is] proper [.] ” Judicial W atch of Florida v. U.S. Dep’ t of Justice , 102 F. Supp. 2d 6, 10 (D .D .C. 20 00 ); se eals o 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4) (B ) (c itations omi tted). “I n a F OIA ca se, a c ourt
may awa rd summa ry judgme nt s ole ly

on theba sis of

inf or matio n p ro vid e d b y

thea g e nc y

in [affidavits or] declar ations when the [aff idavits or] declarations describe ‘ the documents a nd the justifications for nondisclosure w ith reasona bly specific detail, demonstratethat the information withheld logic ally

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

bad fa ith.’” Mo orev . B us h , No. CIV.A.07-107, 2 0 0 9 W L 5 0 4 6 2 3 , at* 3 (D
. D. C
. Fe b
. 2 3 , 2 0 0 9 ) ( qu o t i n g Military Audit Project v. Casey , 656 F .2 d 7 24 , 7 38 (D .C. Cir . 1 98 1) ). “ On c e a c ourt de te rm ine s th at th e a ff

ida vit s [or de c laratio ns ]
aresufficie nt, no further

inquiry into their vera city

is require d.” J

ud ic ial W atc h I nc . v . E x po rtImport-Bank, 108 F. Supp. 2d 19, 25 (D.D .C. 2000). Howeve r, a motion for summar y judgme nt should be grante d in favor of the FO IA re quester “ [w] hen an a g ency seeks to prote ct material which, eve n on the ag ency ’s ver sion of the fa cts falls outside the prof fer ed exemption[ .]” Coldiron v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 3 1 0 F. S u p p . 2 d 4 4 , 4 8 (D
. D. C
. 2 0 0 4 ) ( qu o t i n g Petroleum I nfo. Corp. v. Dep’ t of Interior , 976 F.2d 1429, 1433 ( D.C. Cir. 1992)).
IV . D ISC USS ION Defendant justifiably withheld ex empted information On Novembe r 15, 2004 and on seve ral oc casions thereaf ter, Plaintiff sought the 6Ba

ng oura v. United States Depa rtment of the Ar

my 11

W a sh ing to n ” w ithin the sta tuto ry p e rio d o f t w e n ty d a ys. See S e c o n d A m e n d e d C o m p la int ¶ 7 4 , 7 8 ; see a lso P l ai nt i f f’ s P ar t i al Summ ar y Ju dgment M emo r andum at8 ( “ P l ai nt i f f r eques t s decl ar at ory r el i ef i n t he f orm of an order st at i ng t hat D ef

end ant f ai l ed t o res p o nd , repl y or even ackno wl ed ge t he FO IA request unt i l ove r s i x m o nt hs af t er t he i ni t i al FO I A r eques t an d s i x mont hs af t er [ P l ai nt i f

f ] f i l ed s ui t . ”)
. D ef

endan t opp ose d P l ai nt i f f’ s r eques t , an d m oved t o dis m i ss C o unt O ne co nt end i ng t hat P l ai nt i f f has recei ved t he reme d y
– t o pe t i t i o n t he co urt f o r r el ease of t he re q u e ste d d o c u m e n ts– fo r its failur e to ti m e ly re sp o n d to P la intiff’s re q u e st. D e fen d a n t’s M e m o ra n d u m a t 1 1
. D ef endan t ar gu ed t hat“ [ s ] i nce [ P ] l ai nt i f f ha s f i l ed s ui t t o enf

orce hi s FO I A r eques t . . . t her e i s no poss i bl e r el i ef ava i l abl e . . . on Co un t 1. ” I d. T h e un d e rs ign e d fi n d s tha t t h e F O IA d o e s n o t cr e a te a c a u se o f ac tio n fo r a n a g e n c y’s un tim e ly re sp o n se to a F O IA re q u e st. T h e sta tute c le a rly p ro v id e s a re q u e ste r a re m e d y fo r a n a g e n c y’s no n -co m p lian c e w ith its t im e li m it provi s i ons : a di r ect av enu e t o t he di s t r i ct cour t s t o “ enj oi n t he age ncy f r om wi t hh ol di ng ag enc y r ecor ds and t o order the p ro d u c tio n o f an y a g e n c y re c o rd s im p ro p e rly w ithh e ld .” 5 U .S .C . § 5 5 2 (a )( 4 )( B ); s ee als o E dm on ds I nst i t ut e v . D ep’ tof I nt er i or , 383 F. Supp. 2d 1 05 , 111 ( D
. D
. C
. 200 5) ( “ [ P ] ur po s e of t he FO I A deadl i ne provi s i ons i s t o al l ow a FO I A r equ es t er , w h o h as n ot y etr ec ei v ed a r es pon s e f r om t h e ag en cy , t o s ee k a c ou r t or der c ompel l i n g t h e r el ea s e of t he reque st ed do cum ent s, at whi ch p o i nt t he co urt m ay t hen o rder t he agency t o res p o nd t o t he reque stor revi ew t he reque sti t sel f[. ]’ ”) ( i nt ernal quo t at i o ns m arks and ci t at i o n om i t t ed ). M o reove r, P l ai nt i f f’ s rel i ance o n Sw an V

i ew C oa l i t i on v. D ep’t

of A gri c. , 39 F. Sup p . 2d 42 , 46 (D
. D
. C
. 19 9 9 ) i s ent i rel y m i spl aced
. I n Sw an V i ew , t he co urt h e ld tha t d e c la ra to ry re lief, in the c o n te x t o f F O IA re q u e sts, is li m ited to insta n c e s w h e re a “d e fen d a n t vo lun ta rily cea s es t o eng age i n . . . al l ege dl y i l l ega l conduc t ” dur i ng t he cour s e of l i t i gat i on, wh er e a pl ai nt i f f ch al l eng es an “ al l eg edl y i l l eg al a g en cy pol i cy a n d t h e f u t u r e i mpl i ca t i on of

t h atpol i cy ” or ‘ t h er e ex i s t s s ome cog n i za bl e dan g er of r ecu r r entvi ol at i on. ’ ” Sw an V i ew , 3 9 F . S u p p . 2 d a t 4 6 (c itatio n s o m itt e d ). T h e fac ts o f t h is a c tio n
– D e fen d a n t’s res p o nse t o P l ai nt i f

f’ s i ni t i al FO IA request

– wi t ho ut m o re, do es not present a “ co gni zab l e d anger of recurr ent vi ol at i on” or “ an i l l ega l ag enc y pol i cy . ” S ee a lso P u b l i c E mp l o yees f o r E n vi ron m en t a lR espo n si b i l i t y v. U
. S
. D ep ’t of I nt er i or , N o . C IV .A .0 6 -1 8 2 , 2 0 0 6 W L 3 4 2 2 4 8 4 , at *9 (D .D .C . N o v . 2 8 , 2 0 0 6 ). T h u s, D e fen d a n t’s m o tio n to di s mi s s Coun t O n e of

t h e s ec on d a men ded compl ai n t i s g r an t ed. “produc tion of any

and all materials and information within the possession of the Military Police Un it o f t heMil ita ry Di stric t of

Was hin gton

(“ Mil ita ry Pol ic e Un it” ), re g arding[Pla int if f’ s] arr e st and dete ntion . . . on October 28, 2004 at . . . the State Depa rtment Fe dera l Credit Union in . . . Was hin gton , D .C. [.]” Se c on d Ame nd e d Co mpl a int ¶¶ 1- 2, 5. Pla int if

f a lso so ught d oc ume nts that include “w itness interviews at the c redit union and a ny base ba nning orders issued by

the Police unit.” Id . ¶

2. In r e sp on se to P la int if f’ s N ov e mbe r 1 5, 20 04 F OIA r e qu e st a nd his subsequent inquires, De fenda nt located a

nd produce d fiftee n pag es of doc uments “re g arding [P ]l aintiff and theincident of Oc tober 28, 2004[,] ” (D efe ndant’s Response at 8) which encompa ssed a “ five-pa g e fina l investigation report”; “ two chec ks that [P ]l aintiff had be en attempting to c ash at the time of his a rre st”; “threepag es of ha

ndwritten spec ial ag ent’s notesBa

ng oura v. United States Depa rtment of the Ar

my 12

D ef en dan t pr odu ce d, w i t h ou t r eda ct i on s , c opi es of t h e t wo ch ec k s Pl ai n t i f f a l l eg edl y a t t empt ed t o c as h on 7 O c to b e r 2 8 , 2 0 0 4
.

In Co unt T wo of hi s Se co nd A m end ed C o m p l ai nt , P l ai nt i f f s o ught a de cl arat o ry judgm ent t hat D ef end ant 8 “f ai l ed t o ad eq uat el y art i cul at e wi t h pa rt i cul ari t y a ba si s f o r t he FO IA exem p t i o ns ass ert ed [] ” and t hat “ [a] [ Vaughn ] ind e x . . . wa s n o t p ro v id e d [.]” S e c o n d A m e n d e d C o m p la int ¶ 7 5 , 7 9 ; see a lso P l ai nt i f f’ s M em o randum at 6 (“At no po i nt bef

ore or a f t er [ t he] f

i l i ng of t hi s ac t i on, an d eve n a f t er t he l i mi t ed D i s cover y per i od , di d D ef endan t provi de a Vaughn i nd ex o r s ui t ab l e eq ui val ent i d ent i f y i ng t he b asi s f

o r i t s p ri vi l ege cl ai m s. ”). A s an i ni t i al m at t er, D ef end ant was un der no obl i gat i on t o provi de P l ai nt i f f wi t h a Vaughn I ndex bef ore t he “ f

i l i ng of t hi s ac t i on[
. ] ” See Va ug hn v. Ros en, 48 4 F.2d 82 0 , 82 6 (D
. C
. C i r. 19 7 3 ); see a lso S ch w a rz v. U .S. D ep ’t o f T rea su ry , 131 F. Su pp. 2d 142, 147 ( D
. D
. C
. 200 0) ( “ P l ai nt i f f i s un der t he mi s appreh ens i on t hatan ag enc y r es po ndi ng t o a . . . FO I A r eques t provi de a
‘ s ear ch cer t i f

i cat e a nd a ‘ V aug hn ’ i ndex.
. . . P l ai nt i f f i s advi s ed t hatt her e i s no r equi r ement t hatan ag enc y provi de a
‘ s ear ch cer t i f

i cat e’ or a ‘ V aug hn ’ i ndex on an i ni t i al r eques t f or document s . T he r equi r ement f or det ai l ed d ecl arat i o ns and V aughn i nd i ces i s i m p o sed i n co nnect i o n wi t h a m o t i o n f o r s um m ary judgm ent f i l ed by a defendant i n a ci vi l act i o n pe nd i ng i n co urt . ”). P l ai nt i f f co nt end ed t hat t he M cG ui re D ecl arat i o n “ ut t erl y f ai l ed t o i d ent i f

y t he a b u n d a n t an d a m b igu o u s re d a c tio n s in a syste m a tic m a n n e r[ ,]” a n d tha t “D e fen d a n t p ro v id e d no e x p la n a tio n a s to h o w the d e le tio n s c o rr e la te sp e c ifi c a lly a n d un a m b igu o u sly to the c o rr e sp o n d ing e x e m p tio n s.” P la intiff’s M em o randum at 6. D ef end ant m ai nt ai ned t hat i t “ used a co d ed i nd ex t o s at i sf y t he requir em ent s o f

t he V aughn ind e x [,]” a n d tha t t h e d e ta il o f t h e M c G u ire D e c la ra tio n “is c le a r, sp e c ifi c , an d un a m b igu o u s.” D e fen d a n t’s R e sp o n se a t 1 2
.

T he un ders i gn ed f

i nds t hatt he M cG ui r e D ecl ar at i on cont ai ns an adequat el y det ai l ed j us t i f i cat i on f or e ach cl ai m ed exem p t i o n and an exp l anat i o n of t he reda ct ed i nf o rma t i o n. Furt her, t he und ers i gned was gui d ed by t he ref erence t o t he cl ai m ed exem p t i o ns cl earl y de no t ed at t he b o t t o m of each d i scl o sed d o cum ent and t he co rr espo nd i ng e x p la n a tio n o f t h e w ithh e ld info rm a tio n in the M c G u ire D e c la ra tio n . See M cGui r e D ec l ar at i on ¶ 33 ( “ Exe mpt i on b( 2) w as a s s er t ed t o pr ot ec t s pec i al a g en t s equ en ce n u mber s a n d w as a s s er t ed i n t wo i n s t an ce s : ( 1) on pa g e on e of Ex h i bi t A, Re po r t of

I n v e s t i g a t i on , ‘ I N V ESTI G AT ED BY ’ a n d, ( 2) on pa g e t w o o f Ex h i bi t A, ‘ REPO RT P R E P A R E D B Y .’”) ; see a lso M c G u ire D e c la ra tio n ¶¶ 2 2 , 2 8 -3 0
. B a se d o n the re v ie w o f t h e D e fen d a n t’s D e c la ra tio n a n d a n ind e p e n d e n t re v ie w o f t h e re d a c te d d o c u m e n ts, t h e un d e rs ign e d fi n d s tha t D e fen d a n t sufficie n tly reg arding[P laintiff] and his alleg ed off enses” ; “CID ‘Ag ent’s Ac tivity Summary ’ for

October 28 and 29[,] ” and “ a ‘D aily

Staff Journal or Duty

Offic er’ s L og. . . detail[ing] the activities of the milit ary police off

ice on Oc tober 28, 2004.”Def endant’ s Memorandum at 2-4. Def endant
ma int a ine d th at a

re a so na bleand a de qu ate se arc h h a s b e e n p e rf or me d a nd that “ a ll r e a so na

bly segreg able, non- exempt information has been r elea sed.” D efe ndant’s Response at 12, n.11. De fe nd ant c onte nd e d th at it pr op e rl y wi thh e ld p or

tio ns of the se do c ume nts purs ua

nt t o 5 U. S.C. § 552(b)( 2), (6) , and (7) (C). SeeDef endant’ s Memorandum at 13-24. Thus, the issue bef ore 7 th e c o urti s wh e th e r , a s a

m att e r o f l aw , D e f e n d anti s e nt i t l e d

t o r e l y o nth e s t at e d

F O IA
e xemp tio ns . 8Ba

ng oura v. United States Depa rtment of the Ar

my 13

provi ded a Vaughn i n dex e qu i v al en t t h ats u f f i ci en t l y a r t i cu l at ed t h e cl ai med ex empt i on s a n d t h e i n f or mat i on wi t h h el d, a n d di s cl os ed al l r ea s on abl y s eg r eg abl e, n on ex empti n f or mat i on . Ac cor di n g l y , D ef en dan t ’ s mot i on f

or su m m a ry j u d g m e n t as to C o u n t T w o o f t h e S e c o n d A m e n d e d C o m p la int is gr a n te d
.

( 1) Exe mption 2 At issue in this action are two instanc es in which Exemption 2 was invoked to justify non-disclosure. E x emption 2 of the F OIA exempts from mandatory disclosure re cords “ related solely to the internal pe rsonnel rule s and pra ctices of an ag ency .” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(2) . “The phrase‘per sonnel rules a

nd prac tices’ ha s been inter prete d to include not only ‘minor employ ment matters’ but a lso ‘other rule s and pra ctices g overningag ency personne l.’” Kur dy uk ov v . U .S . Co as t G ua rd, 5 7 8 F. S u p p . 2 d 1 1 4 , 1 2 4 (D
. D. C
. 2 0 0 8 ) ( qu o t i n g Crooker v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Fire arms , 670 F. 2d 1051, 1056 ( D.C. Cir. 1981) ( en banc )). Ex emption 2 applies when a n ag ency meets two criteria. “ First, such infor mation must be ‘used for pr edominately

internal purpose s.’ Second, the a g ency must show either that ‘disclosuremay risk circ umvention of ag ency regulation,’ or that ‘themateria l relate s to trivial administrative matters of no g enuine public inter est.’” Id . at 12 4- 25 (c itatio ns omi tte d) ; see also Amuso v . U.S. Dep’ t of Justice , No. CIV.A.07-1935, 2009 WL535965, at *6 (D.D .C. Mar. 4, 2009). I f the inf or matio n u se d is fo r p re do min antl y int e rn a l pu

rp os e s “ thedis c los ur e of

wh ic h w ou ld risk circ umvention of ag ency

statutes [such information is] . . . protec ted by the so-ca lled ‘high 2’ exemption.” Id. at1 2 5 (qu o t i n g Schiller v. Nat’l Labor Relations Bd. , 964 F. 2d 1205, 1207 (D.C. Cir. 1992)). How ever , if the material at issue re lates to trivial administrative matters of no g enuine public inter est, it is deemed “low 2" exempt material. Id . “L ow 2” e x empt information includes “f

ile numbers, initials, signatur e and ma il routing stamps, re fer ence s to interag ency transfe rs, and data proc essingref ere nces.” Id. (qu o t i n g Schere r v. Kelley , 584 F. 2d 170, 175- 76Ba

ng oura v. United States Depa rtment of the Ar

my 14 (7th Cir. 1978)). Def endant invoked E x emption 2 in two inst ance s to “protec t special a g ent seque nce numbers[] ” which a

re use d “to identify

ag ents when the y

perf orm a my riad of a dministrative f un c t i o n s ( wr i t i n gr e p o rt s , a c c e s s i n gC ID i n f o r m at i o ns y s t e m s , e t c . )
. ” D e c l ar at i o no f P h i l l i p J. Mc Gu ir e (“ Mc Gu ir e De c laratio n” ) ( Do c ume nt N o. 23 -3 ), ¶ 2 2; see also McGuireDec laration ¶ 33 (De fenda

nt reda cted se quencenumbers listed under “ I NVESTI GATED B Y” a

nd “REPORTED BY ” on pag e one a nd two of Exhibi t A, CI D Report of Investig ation). The Def endant maintaine d that the re dacte d sequenc e number s should be exempted under a hy brid of the “high 2” and “ low 2” categ ories, as the“seque nce numbe rs or interna l codes have interna l signific anceonly ,” and a

re use d as “pa

rt of the se curity

measure s used to verify

that authorized ag ents areacc essingCI D information sy stems.” Id . at 19 ; se eals o McGuireDec laration ¶ 23. De fe nd ant f

ur the r c onte nd e d th at di sc los ur e of the se se qu e nc e numbe rs “ c ou ld o pe n th e do or to
un a uth orize d a c c e ss o r i mpe rs on atio n o f a g e nts wh ic h c ou ld a llo w ‘ un a uth orize d in div idu a ls t o
acc ess sensitive information within the CI D sy stems.’” Id. Pla int if f a sse rt e d th at th e se qu e nc e numbe rs are“ ne ith e r routin e no r t ri via l, b ut dir e c tly be ar[s ] on t

his c a se ’s c e ntra l is su e s – De fe nd ant’ s a

pp are ntl y wi lf ul o bf us c atio n a

nd failureto conduct a rea sonable sea

rch in re sponse to Plaintiff’s FOIA re quests.” Plaintiff’s Memora ndum
at 8. Pla int if

f’ s a sse rt ion

is p re mis e d o n h is c onte nti on that th e re da c te d s e qu e nc e numbe rs c ou ld “identify or re late to Gover

nment personne l who had knowledg e of Plaintiff’s a rre st and detention” whic h could deter mine “whe ther a dditional responsive information ex ists and whether the meag er infor

mation produce d to date should have been loc ated a nd produce d sooner.” Id
. Plaintiff also argued that De fenda nt did not demonstrate that disclosure of the seque nce numbe rsBa

ng oura v. United States Depa rtment of the Ar

my 15 “would ‘significantly

risk circ umvention of ag ency regulations or statutes.” Id . Instead, Plaintiff insisted that Defe ndant “identif[ied] no subst antial risk” a nd based its claim of e x emption on

“ un f o un d e d s p e c u lati o n [. ]” Id
. The unde rsigned finds Plaintiff’s asse rtions unavailing . The withheld infor mation–special ag ent seque nce numbe rs–is within the bounds of the internal wor kings of the ag ency

which pr op e rl y satis fi e s th e c ri te ri a

of inf or matio n e xemp te d f

or us a g e wh ic h is “ pr e do min ate ly internal.”As noted in Schoenm an , “material is considere d predominate ly internal whe re it ‘wa s designed to establish rules a nd prac tices for

ag ency personne l and . . . involve[s] no secr et law of the ag ency .’” Schoenm an v. FBI , 575 F. Supp. 2d 136, 154 (D.D .C. 2008) (interna l quotation marks and c itations omi tted). In the instant action, the seque nce numbe rs withheld re lated to the internal pra ctice of

the ag ency

to identify

the users a cce ssing its information sy stems. Plainti ff cannot ove rcomethe proposition that such numbers do not embody any “‘se cre t law’ of the ag ency” or [an] “attempt to modify or re gulate public beha

vior.” Crooker , 670 F. 2d at 1073- 1075. Moreove r, the withheld mate rial–spec ial ag ent seque nce numbe rs–“ne ed not be a ctual ‘r ule s and pr a c tic e s’ to q

ua lif y un de r E xemp tio n 2 , a s th e statut e pr ov ide s th at matte r ‘ re late d’ to rules and practice s is also ex empt.” See Kurdyuk ov , 5 7 8 F. S u

p p . 2 d at1 2 4 (c i t i n g Schwaner v. Dep’ t of the Air Force , 898 F.2d 793, 795 ( D.C. Cir. 1990)). In this inst ance , the seque nce numbers ar e tools for the spe cial ag ents to perf orm their duties. More over, thesequenc e number s
areakin to the use of initials or signature s which is the ty pe of infor

mation contemplated f

or nondisclosure unde r the ‘low 2’ exemption. See id. at 125 (Thelow 2 cate g ory includes exemptions fo r “ fi le numbe rs , in iti a ls, signatur e and ma il routin gsta

mps , r e fe re nc e s to int e ra g e nc y tr ans fe rs , and data pr oc e ssi ngre fe re nc e s. ” ); se eals o Judicial W atch, Inc . v. U.S. De

p’t of Commerce , 8 3 F.Ba

ng oura v. United States Depa rtment of the Ar

my 16

See , n.1 2 , i n

f ra . 9 Supp. 2d 105, 110 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (information prope rly withheld pursuant to the “low 2”
e xemp tio n e nc omp a sse s trivi a l a dmi nis tr ativ e data su c h a s “ fi le numbe rs , mail routin gsta mps , data processingnotations and other a dministrative ma rking s.”). Plaintiff conte nded that disclosure of thesequenc e number s would have a llowed him acc ess to potential information relating to his arr est and de tention. Howeve r, Plaintiff has not proff ere d any evidenc e to ra ise a g e nu ineiss ueof

mate ri a l f

a c t th at th e se qu e nc e numbe rs a reof g e nu ineint e re st t o th e pu bli c g enerally
. For

these re asons, the under signe d finds that Def endant properly

withheld the spec ial ag ent seque nce numbe rs as the infor mation is “used for pr edominately internal purpose s” and “re lates to trivial administrative matters of no g enuine public inter est.” ( 2) Exe mption 6 Def endant invoked thetwo provisions of the FO IA which protect per sonal privac y interests, Exemption 6 and 7(C), to withhold the bala nce of the information re dacte d within the rele ased doc uments. Defe ndant’s Memora ndum at 19-24; see Def

endant’ s Response at 16-17 (“[T]he identities of CI D spec ial ag ents and military police, third par

ties mentioned in the i nv e s t i g at i o nr e p o rt , an d

th i r d p arty w i tn e s s e s h av e b e e np r o p e r l y w i thh e l d , b a s e d

o nF O IA Exe mpt ion s 6 and

7( C) , f ro m th e CID r e po rt

of inv e sti g atio n, a g e nt’ s n ote s, Ag e nt’ s A c tiv ity Summary , a

nd Da ily Sta ff Jour na l or Duty Of fi c e r’ s L ogre le a se d to Pla int if f. ” ); se eals o McGuireDec laration ¶¶ 28-32
. Th e un de rs igne d w illa dd re ss e a c h p art

y ’s c onte nti on s w ith respe ct to exemption 6. 9 Ex emption 6 of the F OIA per mits gover

nmental ag encie s to withhold di sclosure ofBa

ng oura v. United States Depa rtment of the Ar

my 17

“ pe rs onne l and

me dic a 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
unwar rante d invasion of per sonal privac y .” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6) . The a naly sis of whether De fe nd ant p ro pe rl y

wi thh e ld i nf

or matio n p ur su ant t o E xemp tio n 6 , r e qu ir e s th e c ourt to f ir st deter mine whether

the withheld information is “c ontained in per sonnel, medica l or ‘similar’ files.” W as h. Po st C

o. v . D e p’ t of He alt h &Hu ma n S

e rv s. , 690 F.2d 252, 260 ( 1982). In 1982, the SupremeCourt adopted a broad construc tion of the term “similar f iles,” holdingthat the term is “intended to cove r deta iled Gover nment rec ords on an individual which c an be ide ntified as applying to that individual.” Concepc ion v. F.B.I. , No. CIV.A.07-1766, 2009 WL794484, at *13 (D
. D. C
. M ar . 2 7 , 2 0 0 9 ) ( qu o t i n g U.S. Dep’ t of State v. W ashington Post Co. , 456 U.S. 595, 602 (1982)) . The c ourt must nex t determine whether disclosure of thewithheld information serve s as
a c le arl y unwa rrante d inva sio n o f p e rs on a l priva c y , a c on sid e ratio n th at r e qu ir e s th e c ourt to “bala nce theprivate inter est involved (name ly , the individual’s right of privac y ) ag ainst the public interest (na

mely , the basic pur

pose of the F ree dom of Information Ac t, which is to open ag ency action to the light of public scrutiny )[] ” that would be a dvance d by disclosing it. Bigwood v. U.S. Agenc

y for Intern. De velopme nt, 484 F. Supp. 2d 68, 75 (D.D . C. 2007) (i nte rn a l qu otatio ns mark s and c itatio ns omi tte d) . T hepu bli c int e re st und e r F OIA i s li mit e d to that which “‘ sheds light on a n ag ency ’s per formanc e of its statutory duty ’ in order

to inform the citizens ‘about what their g overnme nt is up to.’” S.D. Edmonds v. F BI , 272 F. Supp. 2d 35,52 (D
. D. C
. 2 0 0 3 ) ( qu o t i n g U. S. De p’ t of J us tic ev . R e

po rte rs C om m. Fo r F

re e do m o f th ePress , 489 U.S. 749, 773 (1989)). Pursuant to Ex emption 6, Defe ndant withheld the nameor identities of (1) CI D spec ial ag ents and Military

Police office rs that initiated, investigated or super vised the investig ation ofBa

ng oura v. United States Depa rtment of the Ar

my 18

D ef end ant co nt end ed t hat only one ent ry , ent ry 35 , on t he “ D ai l y Staf f Jo urnal or D ut y O f

f i cer’ s Lo g” 10 re la te s to the P la intiff

a n d the inv e stiga tio n o n O c to b e r 2 8 , 2 0 0 4
. See M cGui r e D ec l ar at i on ¶ 15. the Octobe r 28, 2004 incident involvingPlaintiff, (2) third par ties that wereinterviewe d by the investigation officials and ( 3) third par ties mentioned in the disclosed docume nts that either
rec eived a

copy of the report of investig ation, rec orded infor mation reg ardingpolice ac tivity that
oc c ur re d d uringva ri ou s sh if ts o n O c tob e r 2 8, 20 04 , o r t hat “ we reno t of

inv e sti g ativ e int e re st t o CI D.” SeeMc Gu ir e De c laratio n ¶ ¶ 2 8- 30 ; se eals o McGuireDec laration Ex hibits (Document 10 No. 23-3) at 17-29. Plaintiff did not disput e De fenda nt’s showingthat the re dacte d information qualifies as a

“per sonnel, medica l or similar file” a s contemplated by Ex emption 6. See Plaintiff’s Memorandum at 11 (“He re, e ven ac knowledg ing that the information contains persona l information . . . .”). H oweve r, it is clear that Def endant withheld f

rom the investig ation materia ls identifying pe rsonal information with respect to its personne l. Moreover , the re dacte d names of third pa

rties, whethe r they

arewitnesses or individuals unrelated to the Octobe r 28, 2004 investigation involvi ngPlaintiff, falls within the broad c onstruction of the ter m “similar files” a s contemplated by Ex emption 6 in that the reda cted infor mation applies to particular individuals. Thus, the Defe ndant meets the thre shold require ment for Exemption 6 protection. Indeed, “ [t ]he threshold is ‘fairly minimal,’ such that ‘all information which applies to a pa rt ic ula r i nd ivi du a l is c ov e re d b y Exe mpt ion

6, re g ardle ss o f t

hety peof fi le in whic h it

is contained.” Concepc ion v. F.B.I. , No. CIV.A.07-1766, 2009 WL794484, at *13 (D.D .C. Mar. 27, 2009). Havingmet the threshold re quirement, the c ourt next turns its attention to the “balanc ing of the individual’s right of privac y ag ainst the prese rvation of the ba sic purpose of the Fr eedomBa

ng oura v. United States Depa rtment of the Ar

my 19 of Information Ac t to open ag ency action to the light of public scrutiny .” Am us o , 2 0 0 9 WL 535965, at *7 (interna l quotation marks and citations omitted). In support of its assertion of the privac y interests involved, De fenda nt contended that its age nts and milit ary police “c onduct of fi c ia l in qu irie s into v ari ou s c ri min a l and natio na l se c urity

c a se s . . . wh ic h c on sti tut e
rea sonable, but nonethe less serious intrusions into peoples’ lives[,] ” and that the publicity from the disclosure of

their name s “may

seriously prejudicetheir ef

fec tiveness in conductingother investigations” or subject them to “ha rass[ment] ” and “ animosity [.] ” McGuire De clar ation ¶ 28. Def endant f urther c ontended that its law e nforc ement per sonnel, “a s individuals” require protec tion from “unnec essar y , unofficia l questioning a s to the conduct of this or other investigations[ .]” Id . Moreove r, De fenda nt asserte d that obtaining inf ormation in an interview from individuals reg ardingpossible criminal ac tiviti es “is one of the most productive inv e sti g ativ e too ls util ize d b y law e nf or c e me nt a g e nc ie s[,]”and that “ [t]he larg e st roa db loc k in
succe ssfully

obtaining thedesired inf ormation . . . is fea

r by the interview ee that his [ or her ] identity will possibl y

be exposed[.] ” Id. ¶ 31. De fenda nt contended that it withheld the names of

“ thi rd pa rt y int e rv ie we e s [th at] prov ide d CID w ith va lua bleinf or matio n c on c e rn ingpo ssible criminal ac tiviti es[,] ” as suc h exposure could re sult in that per son being“harassed, intimidated, or threa tened with leg al or e conomic reprisal or possible phy sical har m.” Id . D e fe nd ant a lso
ma int a ine d th at “ [t]he inf or matio n p ro vid e d b y

theint e rv ie we e s w e repr oc e sse d in a e ff or t to rele ase [to the Plaintiff] as much infor mation as possible[.] ” Id. ¶ 32. L ikewise, De fenda nt contende d that third parties that we re “ mere ly mentioned in the re sponsive criminal investig ative fi le
. . . who we reno t of

inv e sti g ativ e int e re st t o CID .
. . [or ] co ns ide re d s ub je c ts o f p os sib le criminal ac tivity , . . . victims or witnesses[] ” maintain “le g itimate privacy interests in not havingBa

ng oura v. United States Depa rtment of the Ar

my 20 information about them disclosed.”Id. ¶ 2 9. Suc h d isc los ur e “ c ou ld s ub je c t th e se indivi du a ls and their f

amily members to possible har assment or c riticism and focus de rog atory infere nces and suspicion on them.” Id
. Plaintiff disputed Defe ndant’s explanation of its withholdings, and a rgued that “the pu bli c ’s signif

ic ant i nte re st [is ] in und e rs tand ingthenatur e and sc op e of De fe nd ant’ s in a

bil ity to
rea sonably

respond to Plaintiff’s F OIA re quests[.] ” Plaintiff’s Memora ndum at 11. However, Plaintiff’s asser

tion of a public intere st, in thi s instance, is entire ly misplaced: a f

air a ssessment of Pla int if f’ s c la im o f p ub lic int e re st i s th at it is p re dic ate d o n Pl a int if

f’ s c on c e rn

wi th r e sp e c t to there a so na

ble ne ss a nd a de qu a c y of De fe nd ant’ s se arc h, rathe r t ha n o n th e me ri ts o f whe the r i t was prope r for

the def endant to withhold information pursuant to exemptions 6 and 7. See id . at 9 ( “Ne ith e r e xemp tio n a

pp lie s h e re , a s D e fe nd ant i de nti fi e s n o p ri va c y int e re st s uf

fi c ie nt t o sh ie ld D e fe nd ant’ s in c omp e te nt r e sp on se to P la int if f’ s F OIA r e qu e sts from t

helight o f p ub lic
sc rutiny .” ); se eals o id . at 11 (“ This casecente rs on the der eliction of De fenda nt’s fundame ntal
re sp on sib ili tie s und e r F OIA, and its c hr on ic a lly

inc omp e te nt s e arc h f

or do c ume nts by

faili ngto ide nti fy pe rs on s w ithkn ow le dg e and re c ords g e ne rate d b y

or re latin gto t

ho se pe rs on s a

nd the ir knowledg e of Plaintiff.” ). Additionally , Plaintiff contended that [E] ven ac knowledg ing that the information contains pe rsonal information, Def

endant identifie s no privacy interest which outweighs the public’s intere st in disclosure of the re dacte d information, which c learly would shed great light on Def endant’ s perf ormanc e (or

as see n throughout this case, lac k of per formanc e) . . . of its statutory

duties, by

identifying thosepersons who ha d knowledg e of r ecords involving Plaintiff and who properly wer e the best sourc es of r esponsive information reg ardingPlaintiff’s F OIA r e qu e st.Ba

ng oura v. United States Depa rtment of the Ar

my 21

P l ai nt i f f i nsi st ed t hat “ t hi s case t eem s wi t h evi d ence t hat D ef end ant has act ed i n ba d f ai t h t hrough a 11 p ersist en t p att ern o f

st rateg i c ‘erro rs’ , o b f

usc ati o n, and i na cti o n in resp o nse t o P l ainti f f’ s l eg i t i m ate F O IA req ue st s, whi ch at t emp t [ s ] t o hel p det er mi ne whe t her P l ai nt i f f was t he vi ct i m o f

r aci al prof

i l i ng by t he G over nment . ” Pl ai n t i f f’ s M emor an du m a t 13. T h e u n der s i g n ed f i n ds Pl ai n t i f

f’ s a r g u men t s of

s u ch “ ev i den ce ” u n av ai l i n g a n d f i n ds no ba si s t o f

i nd D ef end ant act ed i n ba d f

ai t h, i n t hi s i nst ance, i n whi ch D ef end ant s earched , l o cat ed and pro d uced t he re sp o n siv e d o c u m e n ts in this a c tio n . M o re o v e r, P la intiff’s as se rtio n , i n this ins ta n c e , d e n o te s the fl a w in h is ar gu ment . T he onl y i nt er es t prof f er ed by P l ai nt i f

f , i s a per s onal one, wh i ch i s “ i r r el eva nt t o t he FO I A , wh i ch by l aw i s s ens i t i ve onl y t o a publ i c i nt er es t . ” M oo r e v . Uni t ed St at es , No. CI V
. A. 08
- 22 3, 20 09 W L 69 11 20 , a t * 3 ( D
. D
. C. M a r. 1 7 , 2 0 0 9 ) (c itatio n o m itt e d ).

D ef end ant wi t hhel d t he co nt rovert ed i nf o rma t i o n on t he b asi s o f E xem p t i o n 6 and 7(C ). B ecause t he 12 cour t ha s f

ound t hatt he i nf

ormat i on was proper l y wi t hh el d purs uan t t o E xempt i on 6, t her e i s no n eed t o m ake a d e te rm ina tio n re g a rd ing the a p p lica b ili ty o f E x e m p tio n 7 (C ). Id
. (ci t i ng Si m on v. D ep’t of Jus t i ce , 980 F. 2d 782, 7 8 5 ( D
. C
. C i r. 19 9 4 ))
. D ef end ant ad m i t t ed t hat t he “ U ni t ed Stat es Arm y C ri m i nal Inves t i gat i o n C o m m and i s t he felo n y law e n fo rc e m e n t ag e n c y o f t h e U .S . A rm y[] ” a n d tha t C ID p ro d u c e d the re p o rts a n d no te s re le a se d to P la intiff as “ partof

a c r i mi nal i nv es t i gat i on conduc t ed dur i ng t he nor mal cour s e of l aw e nf orce ment dut i es . ” M cG ui re D ec l ar at i on ¶ 25. Pl ai nt i f f di d not cont es t t hes e a s s er t i ons . T he pri vac y i nt er es t s as s er t ed by D ef endan t as ex pl ai ned ab o ve i s suf

f i ci ent t o warrant t he wi t hho l d i ng of t he nam es and i d ent i t i es of t he l aw enf

o rcem ent agent s and t hi rd p a rtie s inv o lve d in C ID ’s inv e stiga tio n . id . at 11 . H ow e ve r “ [i]t is there qu e sto r’ s o bli g atio n to art ic ulate a pu bli c int e re st s uf

fi c ie nt t o outweigh an individual’s privac y interest, and thepublic interest must be significant.” Am us o , 2 0 0 9 W L 5 3 5 9 6 5 , at* 7 (c i t i n g Nat ’l Arc hiv es a nd

Re c or ds Ad min. v . F av ish , 541 U.S. 157, 172 (2 00 4) ). Pla int if

f c ite d n o a

uth ority to s up po rt

dis c los ur e of

su c h in fo rm atio n to he lp h im deter mine whether

Def endant properly

fulfilled its searc h obligations pursuant to the FOIA. 11 SeePlaintiff’s Memorandum at 12 (“Thereda cted infor mation at issue is centra l to determining wh at in fo rm atio n ma

y re ma in u nc ov e re d, or

wh at ave nu e s th e De fe nd ant s ho uld havepurs ue d to
c o n d u c ta r e a s o n a b l e F O IAs e ar c h
. ” )
. Iti s th e p r i v a c y i nt e r e s to f th e i n d i v i d

u a l s , n o tth e a g e n c y, which is at stake if

persona l information is disclosed. Am us o , 2009 WL535965, at *7 (c itations omitted). Thus, the court c oncludes that De fenda nt properly

withheld the names a

nd/or identities of the re dacte d law enf

orce ment personne l or third parties inter viewed during theinvestigation of the Octobe r 28, 2004 incident or me ntioned in the responsive doc uments under Exemption 6. 12 Fo r th es e r ea s o n s , th e un d er s i gn edfi n d s th atP l ai nt i ff fa i l edt o carry

i t s b urd eno f a s s ert i n g aBa

ng oura v. United States Depa rtment of the Ar

my 22

A f t er t he com pl et i on of

bri ef i ng on t he part i es ’ di s po s i t i ve mo t i ons , P l ai nt i f f , on t wo occas i ons di r ect ed 13 the c o u rt to “su p p le m e n ta l l e g a l au tho rity” he c o n te n d e d w a s in su p p o rt o f his m o tio n . See D o c u m e n t N o s. 4 8 , 5 2
. T he und ersigne d f

i nd s t ha t t he au t ho rit y i s i rrelev an t t o t he p ro p er c o nsid era t i o n o f t he d i sp uted i ssue s i n the p arti es’ p e n d ing m o tio n s. public interest suff

icient to outweigh an individual’s privac y interest.

V. CO NC LU SION Upon consider ation of the motions, oppositi ons, replies a nd the entirerec ord her ein, and for the r easons se t forth her ein, it is thi s 8 day of April, 2009, th ORDERED, nunc pro tuncto March 31, 2009, that Def endant[’s] Mot ion to Dismi ss or in t heAl te rn ativ e fo r S umm ary Judgme nt ( Do c ume nt N o. 23 ) i s G RANT ED ; and it i s F URTHER

OR DE RE D that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc ument No. 41 ) i s DE NI ED
. 13

/ s / DEB ORAH A. ROB I

NSON Un i t edS t at es M agi s trat e J u d ge