1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________ : FREDERICK BANKS , : : Plaintiff, : : v. : Civil Action No. 06

- 1950 ( EGS ) : DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al. , : : Defe ndants. : ____________________________________:

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff brought this action under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), see 5 U.S.C. § 552 , and the sole remaining issue pertain s to the withholding of certain information by the U nited States Postal Inspection Service (“USPIS”) . T his matter is before the Court on Defendant USPIS’ Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment

. 1 F or the reasons discussed below, the motion will be granted

.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff submitted seven separate FO IA requests to the USPIS between 2005 and 2009, three of which are relevant to this action. See Banks v. Dep’t of Justice , 813 F. Supp. 2d 132, 135 (D.D.C. 2011). The Court has granted summary judgment in the USPIS’ favor with respect

1 Plaintiff also filed a summary judgment motion of his own, see Pl.’s Renewed Mot. for Summ. J. and Decl. [Dkt. #97], which in no way conforms to the format or substance of a true summary judgment motion. It will be denied.2 to his March 2006 r equest (FOIA No. 2006

- FPIS

- 00167). 2 Banks v. Dep’t of Justice , 538 F. Supp. 2d 228, 234

- 35 (D.D.C. 2008). In addition, the Court has granted in part and denied in part the USPIS’ Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment [Dkt. #75] with respect to plain tiff’s December 28, 2004 and July 11, 2005 requests (FOIA Nos. 2005

- FPIS

- 00020 and
2005

- FPIS

- 00180, respectively). See Banks , 813 F. Supp. 2d at 146. Among the records respons ive to these requests were three documents from which the USPIS redacted inform ation under Exemptions 7(D) and 7(E) : the Application and Affidavit for Search Warrant (Doc. No. 5) , the Affidavit in Support of Criminal Complaint (Doc. No. 13) , and the Case Summary (Doc. No. 15) . Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of Def. USPIS’ Renewed Mot. for Summ. J. [Dkt. #94] (“USPIS Mem.”), Decl. of Betty L. White (“White Decl.”) ¶¶ 4

- 5; see Reply to Pl.’s Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss and for Summ. J. [Dkt. # 87 ] , S econd Supplemental Decl

. of Mildred R. Baxter, Ex. A (S upp lemental Index of Redacted/Withh eld Documents with FOIA Exemptions (“Supp. Vaughn Index ”) (Doc. Nos. 5, 13 and 15). Upon further review, the USPIS has determined that “the information previously withheld pursuant to Exemptions 7(D) and 7(E) is releasable and USPIS no longer asserts” the se exemptions. USPIS Mem., White Decl. ¶ 6. On December 8, 2011, the USPIS unredacted versions of these documents to plaintiff. Id. , White Decl. ¶ 6.

2 Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, f or Summary Judgment [Dkt. #20] addressed plaintiff’s FOIA requests not only to the USPIS, but also to the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the United States Marshals Service, the Executive Office fo r United States Attorneys, the Department of State and Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN).3 II. DISCUSSION
A. Summary Judgment in a FOIA Case
“FOIA cases typically and appropriately are de cided on motions for summary judgment.” Defenders of Wildlife v. U.S. Border Patrol , 623 F. Supp. 2d 83, 87 (D.D.C. 2009). The Court grants summary judgment “ if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and [ that it ] is en titled to judgment as a matter of law. ” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). In a n action under FOIA to compel production of agency records, the agency “is entitled to summary judgment if no material facts are in dispute and if it demonstrates ‘that each document that falls within the class requested either has been produced . . . or is wholly exempt from [FOIA’s] inspection requirements.’” Students Against Genocide v. Dep’t of State , 257 F. 3d 828, 833 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (quoting Goland v. Cent. Intelligence Agency , 60 7 F.2d 339, 352 (D.C. Cir. 1978)).
Summary judgment may be based solely on information provided in an agency’s supporting affidavits or declarations if they are relatively detailed and when they describe “the documents and the justifications for nondisc losure with reasonably specific detail, demonstrate that the information withheld logically falls within the claimed exemption [s] , and are not controverted by either contrary evidence in the record [ or ] by evidence of agency bad faith.” Military Audit Pro ject v. Casey , 656 F.2d 724, 738 (D.C. Cir. 1981); see Beltranena v. Clinton , 770 F. Supp. 2d 175, 182 (D.D.C. 2011). “To successfully challenge an agency’s showing that it complied with the FOIA, the plaintiff must come forward with ‘specific facts’ demo nstrating that there is a genuine issue with respect to whether the agency has improperly withheld extant4 agency records.” Span v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 696 F. Supp. 2d 113, 119 (D.D.C. 2010) (quoting Dep’t of Justice v. Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. 136, 142 ( 1989)).

B. The USPIS Has Met Its Obligations Under The FOIA
Having determined that the USPIS properly withheld certain information from the three documents at issue under Exemptions 6 and 7(C), see Banks , 813 F. Supp. 2d at 141

- 44 , the only information w ithheld from these same documents has been “ withheld solely based on the assertion of Exemption 7(D) and Exemption 7(E).” USPIS Mem., White Decl. ¶ 6 (emphasis in original). Now that the USPIS has withdrawn its reliance on these exemptions and has releas ed unredacted versions of these documents, id. , White Decl. ¶ 6, the USPIS moves for summary judgment , arguing that no genuine issue of material fact exists as to its compliance with the FOIA and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See gen erall y USPIS Mem. at 2

- 3

. Plaintiff oppose s the USPIS’ motion, see Pl.’s Reply to Def. U.S. Postal Inspection Serv.’s Renewed Mot. for Summ. J. [Dkt. #96] (“Pl.’s Opp’n”), arguing that the USPIS “has failed to explain why the information had not otherwi se un - redacted in part where the exemptions were not solely based on 7(D) and 7(E).” Pl.’s Opp’n at 1. 3 No other exemptions apply, however, and the USPIS is not obligated to explain why it did not release unredacted versions of the documents previously. It is apparent that the USPIS believed the information could be withheld under E xemptions 7(D) and 7(E) , and revised its position as this litigation
pro gressed

.

3 Plaintiff’s argument that his “status as an American Indian” somehow entitles him to a more liberal interpretation of the FOIA, Pl.’s Opp’n at 1, is utterly meritless. “T he FOIA does not concern itself with the identity of a requester.” Banks v. Dep’t of Justice , 700 F. Supp. 2d 9, 19 (D.D.C. 2010). Plaintiff’ s “status as a Native American . . . [does not] lead [] inexorably to the conclusion that h e is entitled to the release in full of all the records he has requested. ” Id.5 The Court’s authority under the FOIA is limited , and “federal j urisdiction is dependent
up on a showing that an agency has (1) ‘ improperly ’ ; (2) ‘ withheld ’ ; (3) ‘ agency records. ’ ” Kissinger v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press , 445 U.S. 136, 150 (1980) (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B)) . T he USPIS no longer relies on Exemptions 7(D) and 7(E), and the defendant s ha ve established that the records responsive to all of plaintiff’s FOIA requ ests either have been produced or have been withheld properly under the claimed exemptions. Based on review of all the defendants’ supporting declarat ions and Vaughn Indices, the Court concludes
that all reasonably segregable information has been released.

III. CONCLUSION
The Court concludes that the USPIS has complied fully with its obligations under the FOIA. Accordingly, its renewed motion for s ummary judgment will be granted. There remain no further issue for the Court’s resolution, and a final order is issued separately.

Signed: EMMET G. SULLIVAN United States District Judge Dated: July 26 , 2012