UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE DIS TRICT OF COLUM BIA

Gar y L. Kr etc hm ar, P laintif f, v. Civil Action No. 11-1181 (JD B) F ederal Bureau of In vestigation, Defendan t.

MEMORAN DUM OP INION In this action broug ht pro se under the Fr eedom of Information Ac t (“F OIA”) , 5 U.S.C. § 552, plaintiff cha lleng es the F eder al B urea u of Investig ation’s (“ FB I ”) r elea se of r edac ted
rec ords and its sear ch for responsive r ecor ds. Pending be fore the Court are defe ndant’s motion 1 for summary

judgme nt under Rule 56 of the Fe dera l Rules of Civil Procedur e [Dkt. # 10] and plaintiff’s cr oss motion for summary judgme nt [ Dkt. # 11]. Upon consideration of the pa rties’ submissi ons and the e ntire re cord, the Court will gra nt defe ndant’s motion, deny plaintiff’s motion, and enter judg ment acc ording ly
. I. BACKG ROUND Plaintiff is a Pennsylvania state pr isoner ser ving a life sentenc e for

first-degree murder. Compl. [ Dkt. # 1] ¶ 1; see ge nerally Commonwealth v. Kretchm ar , 971 A.2d 1249 (Pa. Super.
On Novembe r 8, 2011, plaintiff amended the or igina l complaint to include a cla im 1 under the Privacy

Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a [Dkt. # 24] , but he subsequently acknow ledg ed that he should ex haust his administrative reme dies prior to obtainingjudicial revie w of that c laim. Pl.’s Opp’n to De f.’s Mot. to Dismiss or in the Alternative for Summ. J . [Dkt. # 38] . Henc e, the Court will treat plaintiff’s a

mended c omplaint broug ht under the Privac y Act as w ithdrawn a

nd will deny as moot Def.’ s Mot. to Dism iss or in the Alternative f or Summ. J . [Dkt. # 28] filed in response to the amende d complaint.2009). “The victim suffere d three gunshot wounds. Ba llist ics tests reve aled that a .22 caliber firea rm was use d to inflict the wounds.” Kretchmar , 971 A.2d at 1250. Dur ing pla intiff’s trial in November

1988, two FB Ilab examiners testified for the Commonwealth “a

bout evidentiary conclusions dra

wn from f

irea rms identification ana ly sis” and “f rom the for ensic scie ntific technique of

Neutron A ctivation Analy sis . . . , also known as, Comparative B ullet L ead Analy sis (CBLA).” Compl. ¶¶ 8-10; see Kretc hmar , 971 A.2d at 1251-52. In 2004, a study

published by

the National Rese arc h Council of the National Ac ademies (“N AS”) “ assessed the reliability of the scie nce of

CBLA and its usefulne ss as a for ensic evidentiar y tool and [] raise[d] questions as to the usef ulness of CBLA evidenc e.” Kretchmar, 971 A.2d at 1252. “A t about the same time, a former chief metallurg ist for the F BI

. . . offe red public criticism of CBLA [and] C BL A soon came under

attack in a

post-conviction context . . . .” Id . at 1252-53 (c itation omit ted). “ I t appea rs that sometime afte r the NA S issued its repor t, the FB Idiscontinued CBLA.” Id . at 1254. In the instant action, plaintiff a lleg es that on Nove mber 16, 2007, the F BI issued a public statement ac knowledg ing “ that it made mistakes in handlingbullet lead testimony . . . .,” and, on November

18, 2007, announce d that it would “rele ase a ll bullet-lead files involvingconvictions.” Compl. ¶¶ 11-12 (quoting“60 Minutes” a nd The Washing ton Post ). But see Kretchm ar , 971 A.2d at 1254 n.10 (disputingin plaintiff’s post-conviction ac tion “that the [FBI ’s] press rele ase [st ates] that the FB I

had made mistakes in handling bullet lea d testimony ”). A s a re sult of the FB I ’s announc ement, plaintiff submitted a F OIA re quest on Novembe r 28, 2007, to FB I Hea dquarte rs “se ekingrele ase of his bullet-lead ca se file.” Compl. ¶ 13. He re ceive d responsive
rec ords on Octobe r 31, 2008. Id . ¶ 16. On Nove mber 5, 2008, plaintiff submitted a F OIA
2reque st to the FB I“see king r elea se of a n April 15, 1997 Off

ice of Inspector G ener al Report” on the finding s “Critical of F orensic Work Perf ormed by Certain L ab Examiners.” Id . ¶ 17. Plaintiff rec eived the r eport in May 2009. Id . ¶ 19. By letter of January

25, 2010, plaintiff re quested fr om the Ex ecutive O ffice for United States Attorney s (“EO USA”) r ecor ds pertainingto the “F BI /DOJ revie w of the . . . CB LA testimony provided” at his criminal trial and r ecor ds “conta in[ ing] any leg al issues and/or leg al conclusions that have been ide ntified by the FB I/DOJ revie w of the . . . CB LA testimony . . . .” Dec l. of David M. Ha

rdy (“H ardy Dec l.”) [Dkt. # 10-3), Ex. A [ Dkt. # 10-5]. Pl aintiff also reque sted any

such re cords that we re se nt to the District Attorney ’s Off ice of Buc ks County , Pennsylvania, and the Be nsalem, Pennsylvania, Police De partment. Id . In August 2010, EOUSA informed plaintiff that it had refe rre d his request to the F BI , which informe d plaintiff by letter of Dec ember

8, 2010, that a sea

rch of its recor ds showed that the r equeste d rec ords wer e pre viously rele ased to plaintiff in re sponse to his request dated Novembe r 28, 2007. Id ., Ex . D. Plaintiff unsucce ssfully

appea led the F BI ’s deter

mination to the Depar

tment of J ustice’s Offic e of Information Privac y (“O I P”). Id ., Ex s. E, G. FollowingOI P’s decision dated A pril 7, 2011, plaintiff filed this lawsuit on J une 28, 2011, “se ekingthe complete pr oduction of ag ency
rec ords from the D OJ ’s [J uly 2009] review of the bullet-lead a naly sis testim ony

at [his] 1988 state cour t trial[,] ” Compl. ¶ 5, “which w as conduc ted af ter the O ctober

28, 2008 FOIA re lease of plaintiff’s bullet-lea d case file.” Id. ¶32. On September 13, 2011 – the same date of plaintiff’ s motion for summary

judgme nt – the FB Irele ased to plaintiff a total of 110 responsive pa g es, consisting of

“a c opy of the F BI

L abora tory ’s J uly

17, 2009 letter a s well as the thre e re viewer s’ work pa pers whic h includes copie s of the tra nscript from plaintiff’ s state cr iminal trial used to
3revie w the F BI witness’ CBLA testimony at plaintiff’s c riminal trial.” Ha rdy Dec l. ¶ 21. The FB Ireda cted third-pa

rty information from se ven of those pa g es pursua nt to FOIA exemptions 6 and 7(C). Id . ¶ 23 & Ex . H ( Vaughn index). II. LEGAL STANDARD Summary judgme nt is appropriate when the ple ading s and the e vidence demonstrate that “ther e is no g enuine issue a s to any materia l fac t and the movant is entitled to judgme nt as a matter of la

w.” F ed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The pa rty seekingsummary

judgme nt bear s the initial responsibility

of demonstrating the a

bsence of a g enuine dispute of material fa ct. See Ce lotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The moving pa rty may succe ssfully

support its motion by

“citingto particular

parts of materials in the re cord, inc luding . . . doc uments, elec tronically

stored information, affidavits or de clar ations . . . admissions . . . or other mater ials” that it believes demonstrate the abse nce of a g enuine issue of

materia l fac t. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see also Celotex , 477 U.S. at 323. The F OIA re quires fe dera l ag encie s to relea se all re cords r esponsive to a pr oper r equest except those protec ted from disclosure by any of nine e numera

ted exemptions set forth at 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). The disclosure require ment g ener ally cover s only

those rec ords that ar e in the ag ency ’s custody

and contr ol at the time of the F OIA re quest. McG ehee v. Central Intelligence Agenc y , 697 F.2d 1095, 1110 ( D.C. Cir. 1983). A district court is authorized “to e njoin [ a fede ral] ag ency

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

withheld from the c omplainant.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a) (4)( B) ; Kissi nger v. Reporters Comm. for Free dom of the Press , 445 U.S. 136, 139 (1980).

4The a g ency has the burde n of proving that “ea ch docume nt that falls within the class reque sted either ha s been pr oduced, is unidentifiable , or is wholly exempt from the Act' s inspection requir ements.” Goland v. Cent. Intelligenc e Age ncy , 607 F.2d 339, 352 ( D.C. Cir. 1978) (inter

nal citation and quotation mar ks omitt ed); accord M

aydak v . U.S. Dep't of Justice , 218 F.3d 760, 764 ( D.C. Cir. 2000). The district cour t may awa rd summary

judgme nt to an ag ency solely on the basis of infor

mation provided in aff

idavits or decla

rations that desc ribe “ the documents and the justifications for nondisclosure w ith reasona bly specific detail, demonstrate that the information withheld log ically falls within the claimed e x emption, and ar e not controve rted by

either c ontrary

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

bad fa ith.” Military Audit Project v. Casey , 656 F.2d 724, 738 ( D.C. Cir. 1981); accord Vaughn v . Rosen , 484 F.2d 820, 826 ( D.C. Cir. 1973). Ag ency decla rations ar e ac corde d "a

presumption of g ood faith . . .,” Long v. U.S. Dep’ t of Justice , 450 F. Supp. 2d 42, 54 (D.D .C. 2006) (citation and quotation omitt ed), a

nd to rebut them plaintiff “ must pointto evidence sufficie nt to put the Ag ency' s g ood faith into doubt.” Ground Sauce r W atch, Inc . v. C.I.A. , 692 F.2d 770, 771 ( D.C. Cir. 1981). III. DISCUSS ION 1. Claimed Ex emptions Invoking F OIA exemption 6 in conjunction with ex emption 7(C), the F BI reda cted the names of F BI

L aboratory

personne l “re sponsible for conduc ting a revie w of bullet lea d laboratory results that wer e used in the state criminal prose cution of plaintiff.” Har dy Dec l. ¶ 32. Har dy states that lab per sonnel assig nments “ar e not by choice ” and publicity

surroundingan investigation “may

seriously prejudice [t he employees’ ] effec tiveness in conducting other investigations.” Id . As to the privac y interests at stake , Har dy

states that lab per sonnel could be
5subjected to “ unofficia l questioning a s to the conduct of this or other investiga tions” and to hara ssment by

targ ets of the investig ation. Id . Har dy further states that “[t] he F BI

could identify no discernible public inter est in disclosure . . . bec ause . . . the names of F BI L aboratory personne l would not shed light on [the ag ency ’s] operations and a ctivities . . . .” Id
. Since the re quested re cords we re c ompiled duringthe cour se of a criminal investig ation resultingin plaintiff’s prosec ution and conviction, Har dy Dec l. ¶¶ 27-28; Kretchmar , 971 A.2d at 1250, the Court will discuss the FB I ’s justification for r edac ting infor mation under F OIA exemption 7(C). See B lackwell v. Fe d. Bureau of Inv estigation , 646 F.3d 37, 40 ( D.C. Cir. 2 2011) (“ To show that the disputed docume nts were compiled for la w enf orce ment purposes, the [age ncy] need only

establish a rational nexus betwee n the investig ation and one of the ag ency' s law enf orce ment duties . . . .”) ( internal quotation marks a nd citations omitt ed). Ex emption 7(C) protec ts from disclosure “ rec ords or infor mation compiled for law

enfor ceme nt purposes, but only

to the extent that” disclosure of suc h rec ords “c ould rea sonably be expected to constitute an unwa

rra nted invasion of per sonal privac y .” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7) (C); see Robe rts v. FBI , No. 11-0575, -- - F . Supp. 2d ----, 2012 WL 604178 *4-5 (D.D .C. Feb. 24, 2012) (discussing same). T hird-par

ty identifying inf

ormation containe d in law enf orce ment rec ords is cate g orica lly exempt from disclosure abse nt the exis tence of an ove rridingpublic interest. Nation Magazine v. Plaintiff disputes that the “B ullet L ead T ransc ript Review” c reated in J uly 2009 is a law 2 enfor ceme nt rec ord bec ause it “w as a D OJ /FB Iag ency proce edingand the de cisionmaking proce ss did not fall within t he [FB I ’s] law enfor ceme nt duties . . . .” Pl.’s Answer to De f.’s Mot. for Summ. J . ¶ 16. The f act that the F BI

utiliz ed information obtained from a c riminal investigation for another

purpose doe s not alter the r eason the information was c ompiled in the first place . Even if e x emption 7 is inapplicable, the Court finds that def endant ha s proper ly justified withholding the same information under exemption 6, which protects third-par ty information if its disclosure would “c onstitut e a c lear ly unwar rante d invasion of per sonal privac y ." 5 U .S.C. § 552(b)(6); see Har dy Dec l. ¶¶ 29-32. 6United States Customs Serv ., 71 F.3d 885, 896 ( D.C. Cir. 1995); see Safe Card Servs., Inc . v.

SEC , 926 F.2d 1197, 1205 ( D.C. Cir. 1991) (the priva cy interests of third pa

rties mentioned in law enf orce ment rec ords ar e “substantial” ); Roberts , 2012 WL604178 at *5 (summarizing
case s). An over

ridingpublic interest wa

rra nting disclosure of exempt material is established only upon a showingthat the withheld information is nec essar y to confirm or r efute “compe lling evidenc e that the a g ency

denying the FOIA re quest is eng ag ed in illeg al ac tivity .” Quinon v. FBI , 86 F.3d 1222, 1231 ( D.C. Cir. 1996) (citations omitted). “Where the privac y conce rns addre ssed by

Ex emption 7(C) are prese nt, . . . [ the re quester] must show that the public interest soug ht to be advanc ed is a sig nificant one , an intere st more spec ific than having the information for its own sake [and that] . . . the information is likely to advanc e that intere st.” Nat’l Archives and Rec ords Admin. v. Favish , 541 U.S. 157, 172 (2004). In makingsuch a showing , a plaintiff must assert “more than a ba re suspicion” of off

icial misconduct. Id . at 174. He “ must produce evidenc e that would wa

rra nt a belief by a re asonable person that the a lleg ed Gove rnment impropriety

might have occur

red.” Id . Otherw ise, the bala ncingrequire ment does not come into play
. See id . at 175. Plaintiff “denies a

nd contests Def

endant’ s claim that three FB IL aboratory Reviewe r’s work pa pers, B ates-Stamped . . . 3 . . . 39 . . . a nd 75 fall within” exemptions 6 or 7(C). Pl.’s Answer to Def.’ s Mot. for Summ. J . (“Pl.’s Opp’n” ) ¶ 3. He surmises that “the r edac ted portions of the ‘f low char t’ do not appea

r to contain a

ny persona l information [butrathe r] appear to be concludingquestions and/or answe rs that ar e par t of the bullet-lea d transcript review pr ocess, which is devoid of a

ny persona l privacy

component,” id . ¶ 11, and he reque sts that the Court
7revie w those pag es in camera . Id . ¶ 17. Ac cording to Hardy , howeve r, “[t] he F BI has ca ref ully examined the responsive doc uments and has de termined that the [withheld] i nformation . . ., if disclosed, could ca

use unwa rra nted and c lear ly

unwar rante d invasion of the per sonal privac y interests of third pa

rties. Acc ording ly , all rea sonably seg reg able, non- exempt information has been r elea sed to the plaintiff . . . .” Har dy Dec l. ¶ 33. Plaintiff’s speculation about the reda cted por tions fails to create a g enuine dispute of materia l fac t or to rebut the pr esumption of g ood faith ac corde d the Har dy decla ration. Fur thermore , plaintiff has not asse rted that a n overr iding public inter est war rants disclosure of the otherw ise protec ted information. And his re quest for in c amer a re view is reje cted both as
unwar rante d on the re cord a

nd as disfavor ed under

this circuit’s pre cede nt. See, e .g., Hayde n v. N.S.A. , 608 F.2d 1381, 1387 ( D.C. Cir. 1979). Henc e, the Court conc ludes that defe ndant is entitled to judgment on its application of exempti ons 6 and 7(C) to the r edac ted material. 2. Adequa cy

of the Sea

rch Although pla intiff alleg ed in his complaint that defe ndant fa iled to conduct an a dequate
sear ch for rec ords re sponsive to his J anuar y 25, 2010, reque st, Compl . ¶ 5, he ha s not disputed defe ndant’s evide nce of

an ade quate se arc h that subsequently produce d the 110 pag es re lease d duringthis li tigation. SeeHar dy Dec l. ¶¶ 12-21; cf. gene rally Pl.’s Opp’n. Henc e, the Court conclude s that defe ndant is entitled to judgment on the se arc h question. 3. Plaintiff’s Request for Costs Plaintiff asserts that “due to the FB I ’s voluntary chang e in position with t he re lease of (110) pa g es of r ecor ds as a pa rt of this liti g ation, the Plaintiff has substantially preva iled” and is entitled to rec over his costs. Pl.’s Opp’n ¶ 20. Sec tion 552(a)( 4)(E) of the F OIA states that a
8court “ may assess ag ainst the United States re asonable attorney fee s and other litig ation costs
rea sonably

incurre d in any

case under this sec tion in which the complainant has substantially preva iled.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a) (4)( E)(i). Pro se parties a re not e ntitled to attorney ’s fe es but may
rec over the ir litigation costs. Benav ides v. Bure au of Prisons , 993 F.2d 257, 259- 60 (D.C. Cir. 1993). In consideringwhether to awar d costs under the FOIA, a c ourt must first determine plaintiff’s elig ibilit y

for suc h an aw ard a

nd then his entitlement to the reque sted costs. See United Ame r. Financial, Inc. v . Potter , 770 F. Supp. 2d 252, 254-55 (D .D.C. 2011) (c iting W eisberg v. U

.S. Dep't of Justice , 848 F.2d 1265, 1268 ( D.C. Cir. 1988); Burka v. U .S. Dep't of Health &Human Serv ., 142 F.3d 1286, 1288 ( D.C. Cir. 1998)). Whether to aw ard c osts is l eft to the cour t’s discretion. Barnard v. De p’t of Homeland Se c. , 656 F. Supp. 2d 91, 98 (D.D .C. 2009) (citation omitted). Plaintiffs are c onsidered e ligible f or costs if they

can showthat they

substantially preva iled in the litigation. See5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4) (E)( ii). A plaintiff “substantially preva ils” when he obtains relief

either through “(1) a judicial orde r or a n enfor cea

ble written a g ree ment or consent de cre e; or (2) a voluntary or unilatera l chang e in position by the ag ency , if the complainant' s claim is not insubst antial.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a) (4)( E)(ii)( I )-( I I ). A plaintiff is considere d to have “ substantially preva iled” if the litig ation “substantially cause d the re quested
rec ords to be re lease d.” N.Y .C. Apparel F.Z.E. v. U.S. Customs &Border Prot. Bureau , 563 F. Supp. 2d 217, 221 (D.D.C. 2008) (inter nal citations omitted). Once a plaintiff ha s been de emed e ligible f or costs under

FOIA, the cour

t must then consider the followingfour f actor s in determininghis entitlement: (1) the public bene fit derived

9from the c ase; (2) the commer cial bene fit to the plaintiff; (3) the nature of the plaintiff' s interest

in the rec ords; and (4) whether the g overnme nt has a re asonable basis for withholdingthe reque sted information. United Ame r. Financial, Inc. v . Potter , 770 F. Supp. 2d at 255 (c iting Cotton v. Heym an , 63 F.3d 1115, 1117 ( D.C. Cir. 1995)). The se cond and third f actor s “ar e closely related and of

ten consider ed tog ether . . . . When a litigant se eks disclosure f or a
commerc ial benef

it or other per sonal rea sons, an awa rd of f ees is usually

inappropriate.” Cotton, 63 F.3d at 1120 (citation and interna l quotation marks omitted). Section 552(a) (4)( E) does not ope rate to awar d costs to ever y succe ssful liti g ant, but instead see ks “to remove the incentive f or administrative re sistance to disclosure reque sts based not on the merits of exemption claims, but on the knowledg e that many FOIA plaintiffs do not have the financ ial resour ces or economic inc entives to pursue the ir reque sts through e x pensive litigation.” United Ame r. Financial, Inc. , 70 F. Supp. 2d at 255 (quoting Nationw ide Bldg. Maint., Inc. v . Sampson , 559 F.2d 704, 711 ( D.C. Cir. 1977)). He nce, no one fac tor should be g iven “dispositive weig ht” and c ourts are encour ag ed to “se arc h out and consider other fa ctors that may be re levant to whethe r [costs] should be awa rded to a succe ssful FOIA plaintiff.” Id
. (quoting Nationw ide Bldg. Maint., Inc ., 559 F.2d at 714). Upon viewingall the re levant evidenc e and materials, “if the balanc e of [the] four fac tors favor s the Gover nment, then the claim for [costs] is insubstantial.” Id . (quotingPoett v. U.S. D ep’t. of Justice , No. 08-0622, 2010 WL3892249, *5, 2010 U.S. Dist. L EXI S 104900, *13 (D.D.C. Sept. 30, 2010)). Howe ver, “ the court will not assess fe es whe n the ag ency has demonstrated that it had a law ful rig ht to withhold disclosure.” Davy

v. CIA , 550 F.3d 1155, 1159 ( D.C. Cir. 2008). I f the g overnme nt’s position “is corr ect a s a matter of

law, that will be dispositive.” Id . at 1162 (c itation and internal

10quotation marks omitted). I f not, the Court must weig h the g overnme nt’s position “founded on a

colora ble basis in law . . . alongwith other re levant conside rations in the entitlement ca lculus.” Id . (citation and inter

nal quotation marks omitted). Def endant only

disputes plaintiff’s entitlement to the re quested c osts. SeeDef .’s Combined Mem. in Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Summ . J . and Reply to Pl.’s Opp’n to Def.’ s Mot. for Summ. J . [Dkt. # 14] at 6-8. The Court concludes, how ever , that plaintiff is neither e ligible f or nor entitled to costs bec ause the balanc e of the fore g oing f actor s overwhe lmingly

favor s the g overnme nt. A. The G overnme nt’s Ba sis for Withhol ding Re cords The Court will first addre ss the fourth fa ctor to explain why the g overnme nt’s position i s not disposit ive. In his administrative appea l from the F BI ’s deter mination, plaintiff specified – as he doe s in the complaint – that “the doc uments that are the subject of this instant FOI PA reque st would have be en g ener ated a fter the October 28, 2008 FOI PA document re lease .” Ha rdy Dec l., Ex . E (Pl.’s Appea l ¶ 10). B ut OI P ignore d plaintiff’s cla rification of the reque st, parrote d the FB I ’s interpre tation of the re quest as see king “ acc ess to various re cords pe rtainingto compar ative bullet lead a naly sis related to your state c riminal case ,” and a ffirme d the FB I ’s deter mination that it had “locate[d] no additional records” to those previously rele ased. Id ., Ex
. G. Since OI P failed to appre ciate pla intiff’s clar ification that he w as re questingrec ords g ener ated be y ond his criminal trial, the Court ca nnot find that defe ndant’s initial positi on was
corr ect a s a matter of

law. B. Weig hing the Fa ctors “Essentially , the first three fac tors assist a court in distinguishingbetwee n reque sters who seek doc uments for public infor mational purposes [favoringan aw ard] and those who se ek

11documents for private a dvantag e.” Davy , 550 F.3d at 1160. From a ll indications in t he re cord, plaintiff re quested the infor mation for his persona l benef it. “The four

th fac tor consider s whether the ag ency ’s opposition to di sclosure ha d a re asonable basis in law . . . and whe ther the a g ency had not bee n rec alcitra

nt in its opposition t o a valid cla im or otherwise e ng ag ed in obdura te behavior .” Id . at 1162 (c itations and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court does not find defe ndant’s misrea ding of the over ly

descr iptive reque st to be the ty pe of “ administrative resistanc e to disclosure” that the FO IA’s fe e-shiftingstatute is desig ned to discoura g e, and “ [t ]he touchstone of a

court’s discr etionary

decision under

section 552(a )(4) (E) must be whe ther a n
awa rd . . . is nece ssary

to implement the FOI

A.” Davy , 550 F.3d a

t 1159. The Court conc ludes that plaintiff’s c laim should not succeed be cause : (1) the r equeste d
rec ords per

tain only to plaintiff; (2) plaintiff ha s not even a sserted, le t alone shown, how the public would benef

it from this case; (3) the g overnme nt’s initial posi tion was at most the result of a c are less revie w of plaintiff’ s FOI A re quest at the a dminist rative le vel; and (4) the g overnme nt’s subsequent re lease of re sponsive rec ords came re asonably soon after

the filingof the instant complaint and without a cour t order. H ence , plaintiff’s re quest for c osts will be denied. CONCLUSION For the fore g oing r easons, the Court c oncludes that de fenda nt has satisfied its disclosure obligations under the F OIA and is entitled to judg ment as a ma tter of law . Henc e, the Court will deny plaintiff’s cr oss motion for summary judgme nt and his reque st for costs. A sepa rate Orde r
acc ompanies this Memorandum Opinion. s/ J OHN D. B ATES United States District J udg e Dated: July

25, 2012 12