UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________ ) FARZAD DARUI, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 09-02093 (ABJ) ) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ) STATE, ) ) Defendant. ) ___________________________________ )

MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Farzad Darui brought this action against the United States Department of State seeking the release of documents under the Freed om of Information Act. Defendant has moved for summary judgment. Upon consideration of the motion, plaintiff’s opposition, the Court’s own review of the documents themselves, and the entire record of the case, the Court will grant defendant’s motion. I. Background Plaintiff Farzad Darui was the business manager of the Islamic Center (the “Center”) in Washington D.C., and his responsibilities included paying the Center’s invoices by mailing checks to its various vendors. United States v. Darui , Criminal No. 07-00149 (RCL), Compl. ¶¶ 5, 8 (D.D.C. Oct. 12, 2006) (“Crim. Compl.”) . On October 12, 2006, the United States filed criminal charges against Darui in this Court, alleging that Darui had altered the payee line on multiple checks intended for the Center’s vendors and had instead deposited them to a bank account held by a corporation in which he was the chief executive officer. Id . ¶¶ 8

 11. The government charged him with mail fraud and inte rstate transportation of stolen property. Id . ¶ 2.2 During the course of plaintiff’s criminal tria l, the government made known its intention to call a witness who worked for the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia (the “Embassy”). Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J., Ex B, United States v. Darui , Criminal No. 07-00149 (RCL), Trial Transcript at 83 (D.D.C. May 19, 2008) (“Crim. Tr.”). Before the witness testified, the Court reviewed two letters under seal between the Department of State (“State” or “d efendant”) and the Ambassador of Saudi Arabia concerning a limited waiver of sovereign immunity for the Embassy witness under the Vienna Convention on Di plomatic Relations. Crim. Tr

. at 84, 89. The limited waiver of sovereign immunity authorized the witness to testify in the criminal proceedings against plaintiff about certain documents he saw while working at the Embassy. Id. at 85. The Court reviewed the letters, and on May 19, 2008, the Court di rected that they be shown to plaintiff and his defense counsel for purposes of limiting the scope of cross-examination. Id. at 88

 90. The Court also placed the documents and any further discussion of them under seal. Id . at 89–90. On June 17, 2008, plaintiff submitted a documen t request to State under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552. Decl aration of Margaret P. Grafeld (“Grafeld Decl.”) ¶ 4. The initial request sought all documents collected and maintained by State regarding plaintiff. Id. On October 2, 2008, plaintiff narrowed his FOIA request to three sets of documents. Id. ¶ 10. These categories are: (1) communications between State and the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) in May 2008 regarding plaintiff; (2) any communications between State and the Embassy regarding plai ntiff between August 2006 and October 2008; (3) any communications between State and the Isla mic Center of Washington, D.C. regarding plaintiff between August 2006 and October 2008. Id . Upon receiving the narrowed request, State asserts that it initiated a comprehensive search of the Central Foreign Policy Records, the3 Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, the Office of the Legal Advisor, and the United States Embassy in Riyadh. Def.’s Mem. in Support of Mot. for Summ. J. (“Def.’s Mem.”) at 4. On November 6, 2009, plaintiff filed this act ion seeking a court order requiring the release of all responsive records under FOIA . Compl. ¶ 1. On March 17, 2010, defendant informed plaintiff that its search of the Central Foreign Policy Record, the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs and the Office of the Legal Advi sor had resulted in three responsive documents. Grafeld Decl. ¶ 16, Ex. 12. The March 17 corre spondence further explai ned that State was withholding all three documents, in full, pursu ant to FOIA Exemption 1 (properly classified materials authorized to be kept secret in the interest of national defe nse and foreign policy), Exemption 5 (inter- or intra-agency memoranda wh ich would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency), and Exemption 7(A) (records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, the pro duction of which could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings). Id . On April 8, 2010, State wrote plaintiff again, notifying him that it had completed its search of the United States Embassy at Riyadh and had located no further responsive documents. Id. ¶ 17, Ex. 13. On May 3, 2010, State wrote plaintiff a third time. Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. C. The letter included a Vaughn index that described the three res ponsive documents and explained the FOIA exemptions under which they were being withheld . Id. at 2–3. The Vaughn index explained that Document 1 consis ted of a series of emails between attorneys at State and the Department of Justice and was being withheld pursuant to FO IA Exemptions 5 and 7(A). Id. at 2. Document 2 was described as a letter from an official at State to the Ambassador of Saudi Arabia, and Document 3 was a letter from the Ambass ador of Saudi Arabia to the United States.4 Id. at 2–3. The May 3 letter also info rmed plaintiff that Documents 2 and 3 were being withheld in full pursuant to FOIA exemptions 1 and 7(A). Id. Meanwhile, the government’s criminal case ag ainst plaintiff resulted in a hung jury; thereafter, the government moved to dismiss the criminal charges. Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. A at 18, 29. On August 16, 2010, the Court granted the government’s motion. Id. State then informed plaintiff that it would no longer assert an exemption of the responsive documents under FOIA Exemption 7(A) but that it would conti nue to withhold Document 1 under Exemption 5, and withhold Documents 2 and 3 under Exemption 1. Def.’s Mem. at 5

. On September 17, 2010, defendant State moved fo r summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. Attached to the motion is the Declaration of Margaret P. Grafeld, the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Global Information Services and the Director of the Office of Information Programs and Services of the Department of State. Grafeld Decl. at 1. On June 30, 2011, the Court directed defendant to produce the three documents at issue to chambers for in camera inspection to assist the Cour t in making a responsible de novo determination. II. Standard of Review The purpose of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, is to require the release of government records upon request. “The basic purpose of FOIA is to ensure an informed citizenry, vital to the functioning of a democratic society, needed to check against corruption and to hold the governors accountable to the governed.” NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co. , 437 U.S. 214, 242 (1978). “Yet Congress realized that le gitimate governmental a nd private interests could be harmed by release of certain type s of information and pr ovided nine specific exemptions under which disc losure could be refused.” FBI v. Abramson , 456 U.S. 615, 6215 (1982). These exemptions “must be narrowly construed,” Dep’t of Air Force v. Rose , 425 U.S. 352, 361 (1976), while still “hav[ing] meaningful reach and application,” John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp. , 493 U.S. 146, 152 (1989). Congress’s a im with FOIA was to establish a balance between the public’s right to know and th e need for the government to protect sensitive information. See id

. “FOIA cases are typically and appropriatel y decided on motions for summary judgment.” Moore v. Bush , 601 F. Supp. 2d 6, 12 (D.D.C. 2009) (citati ons omitted). Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) provides that “[t]he court shall grant summary j udgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” In a motion for summary judgment, the Court “must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, draw all re asonable inferences in his favor, and eschew making credibility determinations or weighing the evidence.” Montgomery v. Chao , 546 F.3d 703, 706 (D.C. Cir. 2008). See also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 247

 48 (1986). “In a FOIA case, a court may award summa ry judgment solely on the basis of information provided by the agency in d eclarations” in certain circumstances. Moore , 601 F. Supp. 2d at 12. Those circumstances exist when th e declarations describe “the documents and the justifications for nondisclosure with reas onably specific detail, demonstrate that the information withheld logically falls within the claimed exemption, and are not controverted by either contrary evidence in the record nor by evidence of agency bad faith.” Military Audit Project v. Casey , 656 F.2d 724, 738 (D.C. Cir. 1981). The district court must “determine the matter de novo , and . . . the burden is on the agency to sustain its action.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B); see also Military Audit Project , 656 F.2d6 at 738. The court has the discretion to conduct an in camera review of the withheld material in order to make a responsible de novo determination on the claims of exemption. Ray v. Turner, 587 F.2d 1187, 1195 (D.C. Cir. 1978). But, “in conducting de novo review in the context of national security concerns, courts ‘must accord substantial weight to an agency’s affidavit concerning the details of the classified status of the disputed record.’” Wolf v. CIA , 473 F.3d 370, 374 (D.C. Cir. 2007), quoting Miller v. Casey , 730 F.2d 773, 776 (D.C. Cir. 1984). The Court must be aware “that any affidavit or other agency statement of threatened harm to national security will always be speculative to some extent, in the sense that it describes a potential future harm .” Halperin v. CIA , 629 F.2d 144, 149 (D.C. Cir. 1980). “Ultimately, an agency’s justification for invoking a FOIA exemption is su fficient if it appears ‘logical’ or ‘plausible.’” Wolf , 473 F.3d at 374

 75. III. Analysis A. Document 1 is Properly Withheld Pursuant to FOIA Exemption 5 FOIA Exemption 5 provides for withholdi ng “inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters whic h would not be available by law to a party . . . in litigation with the agency.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5). Put another way, Exemption 5 provides for the protection of information “normally privileged in the civil discovery context.” NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. , 421 U.S. 132, 149 (1975). “To qualify as exempt under [Exemption 5], a document must meet two conditions: ‘[1] its source must be a Government agency, and [2] it must fall within the ambit of a privilege against discovery under judicial standards that would govern litigation against the agency that holds it.’” Stolt-Nielsen Transp. Grp. Ltd. v. United States , 534 F.3d 728, 733 (D.C. Cir. 2008), quoting Dep't of Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protective Ass'n. , 532 U.S. 1, 8 (2001). The Court ha s determined that Document 1 meets both conditions.7 Plaintiff does not dispute that Document 1 is a series of email exchanges between attorneys for the Department of Justic e and for the Department of State. See Grafeld Decl. at
14

 15; Pl.’s Opp. at 9. However, plaintiff asserts that defendant has faile d establish the second element – that the information would be subject to privilege in the normal course of civil litigation discovery. To qualify for protection under the attorney work-product doctrine, the material in question must (1) be a document or tangible thing, (2) which was prepared in anticipation of litigation, and (3) was prepared by or for a party, or by or for its representative. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(A) (“[A] party may not discover documents and tangible things that are prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or its representative (including the other party’s attorney. . . ).”). Moreover, “[a]ny part of [a document] prepared in anticipation of litigation, not just the portions concerning opinions, legal theories, and the like, is protected by the work product doctrine and falls under exemption 5.” Tax Analysts v. IRS , 117 F.3d 607, 620 (D.C. Cir. 1997). The test for whether a document was prepared “in anticipation” of litigation is “whether, in light of the nature of the document and the factual situation in the particular case, the document can fairly be said to have been prepared or obtained because of the prospect of litigation.” Wright & Miller , 8 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Ci v. § 2024 (emphasis added). See also SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC , 926 F.2d 1197, 1203 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (“[W]here an attorney prepares a document in the course of an active investigation focusing upon specific events and a specific possible violation by a specific party, it has litigation sufficiently ‘in mind’ for that document to qualify as attorney work product.”)8 Here, Grafeld’s declaration establishes each of the elements of a ttorney work product. First, the materials in question are documents – a se ries of emails. Grafeld Decl. at 14. Second, the emails “were prepared in connection with a law enforcement proceeding.” Id. at 15. The emails are dated May 5

 7, 2008, which was two weeks before the Court heard arguments in the underlying criminal case regarding Saudi Arabia’s partial waiver of sovereign immunity. Given both the subject matter of the emails and the timing, and in light of the Court’s own review of the material, it is clear to the Court that the gove rnment attorneys were “focusing upon specific events,” and “a specific party,” thus “ha[ving] litigation sufficiently ‘in mind’” for the documents to qualify as attorney work product. SafeCard Servs. , 926 F.2d at 1203. Third, Grafeld’s declaration establishes that the emails were prepared by attorneys for DOJ and State. Grafeld Decl. at 15. The attorneys from DOJ were representing the United States in the criminal case against the plaintiff, so the emails qualify as being prepared “by or for another party or its representative (including the other party’s a ttorney. . . ).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(A). Plaintiff argues that defendant fails to speci fy “how the attorney-work product privilege applies to the withheld documents.” Pl.’s Opp. at 12. He also argues that “[t]here is no discussion of who the attorneys actually are, what offices they represent as attorneys, and what relationship they have to the underlying legal proceedings.” Id. The Court’s review of the documents satisfies the Court that the exchange specifically involved the prosecuting attorneys in plaintiff’s criminal case, and that they were pr epared in anticipation of the sovereign immunity hearing. Grafeld Decl. at 15. Thus, Grafeld’s de claration is sufficient to establish the “logical” or “plausible” conclusion, see Wolf , 473 F.3d at 375, that emails between attorneys at DOJ and State discussing plaintiff’s hearing on sovere ign immunity fall within the attorney work product privilege. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, it is evident9 to the Court that these emails would not have been discoverable in the course of plaintiff’s criminal trial and therefore prope rly withheld under Exemption 5. Defendants also argue that Document 1 falls within attorney-client and deliberative process privileges. However, the Court need not reach these arguments, given the conclusion that Document 1 is protected by attorney wo rk-product privilege, and is therefore properly withheld under Exemption 5. B. Documents 2 and 3 Are Properly With held Pursuant to FOIA Exemption 1 FOIA Exemption 1 provides that disclosure s do not apply “to matters that are (A) specifically authorized under criteri a established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or fo reign policy and (B) are in fact actually classified pursuant to such an Executive order.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1). The Court will grant defendant’s motion for summary judgment because defendant has established the requirements of nondisclosure under Exemption 1, and because plaintiff cannot show that defendant waived the right to invoke Exemption 1. 1. Defendant Properly Classified Documents 2 and 3 In Accordance With Executive Order 13526 On December 29, 2009, President Obama issued Executive Order 13526, 75 Fed. Reg. 707 (Dec. 29, 2009), which replaced Executive Or ders 13292 and 12958. Information is subject to classification under Executive Order 13526 if it meets the following conditions: (1) an original classification authority is classifying the information; (2) the information is owned by, produced byor for, or is under the control of the United States Government; (3) the information falls within one or more of the categories of information listed in section 1.4 of this order; and (4) the original classification authority determines that the unauthorized disclosure of the information reasonably c ould be expected to result in damage to10 the national security, which includes defe nse against transnational terrorism, and the original classification authority is able to identify or describe the damage. Exec. Order No. 13,526, § 1.1(a). The Court has dete rmined that defendant has established each of these elements. First, Grafeld’s declaration establishes that she is a proper classifying authority. Grafeld Decl. ¶ 1. Plaintiff’s attempt to refute this fact is unpersuasive. Plaintiff proffers no evidence to support his contentions that Grafel d lacks the authority to classifyinformation, that Grafeld is perjuring herself in her declaration, or that she has failed to comply with the Executive Order’s requirements for classification authority. See Pl.’s Opp. at 5. Second, plaintiff does not refute that Docu ments 2 and 3 – diplomatic cables between the governments of the United States and Saudi Arabia – are “owned, produced by or for, or under . . . the control of the United States Governme nt.” Exec. Order No. 13,526, § 1.1(a)(2). Third, Documents 2 and 3 meet the require ments of section 1.4 of Executive Order 13526. Section 1.4 details seven cat egories of information that may be considered for classification. It includes information that relates to “foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources.” Exec. Order No. 13,526, § 1.4(d). Grafeld stated in her signed, sworn declaration that Docu ments 2 and 3 “concern U.S. foreign relations, specifically, correspondence with a foreign governme nt on a matter regarded by that government as sensitive, namely, archival inviolability u nder the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.” Grafeld Decl

. ¶ 35. The Court’s review of the doc uments bears out this description. Moreover, section 1.4(b) of the Executive Order permits classifying “foreign government information.” Exec. Order No. 13,526, § 1.4(b). S ection 6.1(s) of the Executive Order defines the term foreign government information as “information provided to the United States Government by a foreign government . . . with th e expectation that the in formation, the source of11 the information, or both, are to be held in confidence.” Id. § 6.1(s). Grafeld declared that Document 3 was “obtained in confidence from a foreign government . . . . Diplomatic exchanges are premised upon, and depend upon, an expectati on that confidentiality will be observed.” Grafeld Decl. ¶ 33. Thus, Document 2 falls with in category 1.4(d). And Document 3 – the letter from the Ambassador of Saudi Arabia to the United States – falls within categories of information listed in Sec tions 1.4(b) and 1.4(d). Finally, Grafeld determined that the disclo sure of Documents 2 and 3 “reasonably could be expected to result in damage to the nati onal security.” Exec. Order No. 13,526, § 1.1(a)(4). Regarding both Documents 2 and 3, Grafeld stated that “[t]he inability of the United States to maintain confidentiality in its diplomatic exchanges would inevitably chill relations with other countries. It would damage national security by diminishing our access to vital sources of information.” Grafeld Decl. ¶ 33. See also id. ¶ 35 (“The release of this information could reasonably be expected to cause damage to U.S. relations with a foreign government that expects diplomatic relations to be conducted in confidence.”). Furthe rmore, the disclosure of Document 3, which qualifies as foreign government informa tion, “is presumed to cause damage to national security.” Exec. Order No. 13,526, Section 1.1(d). Grafeld stated that this presumption holds true here. See Grafeld Decl. ¶ 34. Plaintiff argues that defendant has failed to claim a reasonable degree of specificity, that evidence in the record controverts defendant’s claims, and that Documents 2 and 3 were not classified at the time of his cr iminal trial. Pl.’s Opp. at 7

 8. The Court rejects these arguments. On the one hand, Plaintiff acknowledges that “[ g]overnment classificati on decisions receive a great amount of deference.” Pl.’s Reply at 6 (citing Morley v. CIA , 508 F.3d 1108, 1124 (D.C. Cir. 2007)). But immediately thereafter, plaintiff argues that defendant has failed to specify the12 actual harm that would result from disclosure. As plaintiff’s own cited authority recognized, “the text of Exemption 1 itself suggests that little proof or explanation is required beyond a plausible assertion that inform ation is properly classified.” Morley , 508 F.3d at 1124. Here, as in Morley , plaintiff’s “argument for declassification does not overcome the ‘ substantial weight ’ the court must accord ‘to an agency’s affidavit c oncerning the details of the classified status of the disputed record.’” Id. , quoting Military Audit Project , 656 F.2d at 738. Second, plaintiff argues that the government ’s actions during the criminal proceedings undermine any deference to be accorded to the government’s decision to withhold the documents. Pl.’s Opp. at 8. It is true thatthe Assistant United States Attorney (“AUSA”) involved in plaintiff’s criminal case commented at the sovereign immunity hearing that “if the material was placed in the public domain, ‘the Gove rnment’s not going to shed tears over it.’” Id. , quoting Crim. Tr. at 90. But at the same time, the government sought to have Documents 2 and 3, as well as any discussion of them, placed under seal, and the Court granted that request. See Crim. Tr. at 89:25–90:4. Thus, while the records were disclosed to the plaintiff’s counsel during proceedings related to the criminal trial, the government never consented to their release into the public domain. Moreover, the AUSA does not have the authority to classify or declassify the documents, played no role in their classification, and does not work for State, the party in this action seeking nondisclosure. In sum, the AUSA’s single offhand remark is insufficient to overcome the substantial we ight due to the Grafeld declaration. The fact that plaintiff viewed Documents 2 and 3 during his criminal trial does not undermine the government’s position under the circum stances in this case. Viewing documents under seal as a litigant is different than requestin g the same documents as a member of the public under FOIA. The Court concluded in the criminal trial that plaintiff – as a criminal defendant in13 the underlying proceeding – deserved access to Do cuments 2 and 3 in order to understand the limits of the waiver of sovereign immunity that would apply to the Embassy witness. But those documents were under seal, which prevents the public from viewing them. See Morgan v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 923 F.2d 195, 197 n.2 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (“Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) . . . gives the court the discretion both to place documents in the court record under seal and to issue detailed protective orders prohibiting disclosure of documents obtained through discovery.”) There would be no such restrictions if the governme nt were to produce the documents pursuant to FOIA; the statute establishes the “ public [ ’s ] right to secure such information.” John Doe Agency , 493 U.S. at 151 (emphasis added). Moreover, the documents at issue were subsequently classified in accordance with Executive Order 13526, Section 1.1( a). Therefore, the fact that plaintiff viewed the documents under seal at one time does not entitle the public to broad access to classified documents now. Finally, plaintiff argues the current classifi ed status of Documents 2 and 3 is deficient because they were not classified at the time of his criminal trial. Pl.’s Opp. at 8 n.2. Again, the Court points out that while the documents were revealed to the plaintiff during the trial, they have never been disclosed to the public . And Executive Order 13526 allows for the classification of national secu rity information after it has been requested under FOIA. Information that has not previously b een disclosed to the public under proper authority may be classified . . . after an agency has received a request for it under the Freedom of Information Act . . . only if such classification meets the requirements of this order and is accomplished on a document-by-document basis with the personal participation or under th e direction of the agency head, the deputy agency head, or the senior offi cial designated under section 5.4 of this order. Exec. Order No. 13,526, § 1.7(d). Grafeld’s decl aration establishes the defendant’s compliance with section 1.7(d).14 2. Defendant Has Not Waived Its Right to Classify Documents 2 and 3 In rare circumstances, actions by the government may waive its ability to withhold information sought under FOIA. However, the stringent test for waiver of a FOIA exemption has not been met in the instant case. “[A]lthough an agency bears the burden of proving that a FOIA exemption applies to a given document, a plaintiff asserting that inform ation has been previous ly disclosed bears the initial burden of pointing to the specific informa tion in the public domain that duplicates that being withheld.” Pub. Citizen v. Dep’t of State , 11 F.3d 198, 201 (D.C. Cir. 1993), citing Afshar v. Dep’t of State , 702 F.2d 1125, 1130 (D.C. Cir. 1983). “[FOIA] bars the courts from prying loose from the government even the smallest bi t of information that is properly classified.” Afshar , 702 F.2d at 1130. The D.C. Circuit has held that “when info rmation has been ‘officially acknowledged[]’ its disclosure may be compelled even over an agency’s otherwise valid exemption claim.” Fitzgibbon v. CIA , 911 F.2d 755, 765 (D.C. Cir. 1990). The Court identified three requirements to determine whether the government has waived its right to withhold the sought information by officially acknowledging it: First, the information requested must be as specific as the information previously released. Second, the information requ ested must match the information previously disclosed . . . . Third, . . . the information requested must already have been made public through an offi cial and documented disclosure. Fitzgibbon , 911 F.2d at 765, citing Afshar , 702 F.2d at 1133. 1

1 In Afshar , the Court denied a claim of waiver for requested information that appeared in books written by former C.I.A. agents and in documen ts previously released by the C.I.A., State, and the F.B.I. 702 F.2d at 1132

 35. The Court reasoned that the statements in the book failed to meet the “official and documented disclosure” element and the released documents were either less specific than the requested information or contained information that was sufficiently different. Id. In Fitzgibbon , the court denied the plaintiff’s allegation of waiver even when the information sought – the location of a C.I.A. st ation – had been disclosed in a congressional15 Here, plaintiff is able to establish that Documents 2 and 3 meet the first and second elements of a waiver argument. Identical copies of Documents 2 and 3 were made available to plaintiff in his criminal trial, thus meeting the required level of specificity. However, plaintiff cannot establish the third element. Documents 2 and 3 were placed under seal in the criminal proceedings, and therefore, there has been no official, documented, public disclosure that could form the predicate for a waiver. IV. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants defendant’s motion for summary judgment. A separate order will issue.

AMY BERMAN JACKSON United States District Judge DATE: July 11, 2011

committee report because the congressional report re lated to events from a different time period. 911 F.2d 755, 765

 66.