UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

VINCENT DEMARTINO, ) 

) 

) 

) 

F .B.I. et al., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Defendants. 

) Civil Action No. 06-0879 (RJL) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

r----

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

January 1.2-, 2009 

Pending before the Court is the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation's ("FBI") renewed 

motion for summary judgment [Dkt. No. 55] filed in response to the Order of September 15, 

2008, directing supplementation of the record in this Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") case. 

The FBI proffers the Sixth Declaration of David M. Hardy ("6th Hardy Decl.") to justify FBI 

Headquarters's withholding of seven pages of records in their entirety. See Memorandum 

Opinion of September 15, 2008 ("Mem. Op.") [Dkt. No. 49] at 5 (finding insufficient evidence to 

resolve record segregability question). Upon consideration of the FBI's renewed motion and 

plaintiffs supplemental responses [Dkt. Nos. 59, 60-2], the Court grants the FBI's renewed 

motion for summary judgment on the remaining issue of the case. I 

Mr. Hardy has adequately described the seven withheld pages, Hardy Decl. ~~ 7-9, and 

explained the applicability of FOIA exemptions 2, 7(C) 7(D) and 7(E) to those pages. Id. ~~ 15, 

20, 21, 24-26. Moreover, he states that the disclosure of any "nonexempt words and phrases" 

contained therein "would provide only a patchwork of unintelligible text." Id. ~ 30. In his 

I See Orders of September 15,2008 and September 27, 2007 (resolving all other claims). 
opposing declaration [Dkt. No. 60-2], plaintiff does not directly address the current motion but 

rather claims that "newly discovered evidence" supports his innocence of the crimes for which he 

is serving time. At best, plaintiffs opposition relates only to defendant's invocation of 

exemption 7(C). See Crooker v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 670 F.2d 1051,1074 

n. 61 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (noting "that in two [] exemptions, 7(C) and 6, 'the court is called upon to 

balance the conflicting interests and values involved; in other exemptions Congress has struck 

the balance and the duty of the court is limited to finding whether the material is within the 

defined category. "') (quoting Lesar v. United States Dep't of Justice, 636 F.2d 472, 486 n.80 

(D.C. Cir.1980)) (other citation omitted). 

Defendant invoked exemption 7(C), in conjunction with exemption 6, to withhold 

identifying information of FBI Special Agents and third-party individuals of investigative interest 

to the FBI and other law enforcement agencies. 6th Hardy Decl. ~~ 20-21. Third-party 

information contained in law enforcement files is "categorically exempt" from disclosure under 

exemption 7(C) in the absence of an overriding public interest in its disclosure. 2 Nation 

Magazine, Washington Bureau v. United States Customs Service, 71 F.3d 885, 896 (D.C. Cir. 

1995). In order to demonstrate a public interest warranting disclosure of the otherwise protected 

information, plaintiff must show that the withheld information is necessary to "shed any light on 

the [unlawful] conduct of any Government agency or official." United States Dep 't of Justice v. 

Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749, 772-73 (1989); accord SafeCard 

Services, Inc., v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197, 1206 (D.C. Cir. 1991). "Where the privacy concerns 

addressed by Exemption 7(C) are present, ... [the requester] must show that the public interest 

2 See Mem. Op. at 6 (finding exemption 7's threshold requirement of law enforcement 

records satisfied). 

2 
sought to be advanced is a significant one, an interest more specific than having the information 

for its own sake [and that] ... the information is likely to advance that interest." National 

Archives and Records Administration v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157, 172 (2004). In making such a 

showing, plaintiff must assert "more than a bare suspicion" of official misconduct. Id. at 174. He 

"must produce evidence that would warrant a belief by a reasonable person that the alleged 

Government impropriety might have occurred." !d. Otherwise, the balancing requirement does 

not come into play. See id. at 175. Plaintiffs suggestion that the withheld information would 

somehow prove his innocence provides no basis for balancing the interests at stake because the 

public interest in disclosure "does not include helping an individual obtain information for his 

personal use" to overturn a conviction. Oguaju v. Us., 288 F.3d 448, 450 (D.C. Cir. 2002), 

vacated and remanded on other grounds, 124 S.Ct. 1903 (2004), reinstated, 378 F.3d 1115 (D.C. 

Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). 

Based on the sixth Hardy declaration, which plaintiff has not adequately refuted, the 

Court finds FBI Headquarters's withholding of seven pages to be properly justified and 

concludes that the FBI is now entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Mays v. DEA, 234 

F.3d 1324, 1327 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (permitting an agency to withhold entire documents when the 

'''exempt and nonexempt information are 'inextricably intertwined,' such that the excision of 

exempt information would ... produce an edited document with little informational value. "') 

(quoting Neufeldv. IRS, 646 F.2d 661, 666 (D.C. Cir. 1981)). A separate final Order 

accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. 

United States District Judge 

3