UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE DIS TRICT OF COLUM BIA
EMMAN UEL N. LAZARID IS, ) ) P laintif f, )

) v. ) Civ. Ac tion No. 09-1177 (RM C) ) UNITED STAT ES ) DEP ARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al. , ) ) Defendan ts. )

MEMORAN DUM OP INION In this pro se civil action, plaintiff Emmanue l N. L azaridis, seeks r ecor ds under the Fr eedom of

Information Ac t (“F OIA”) , 5 U.S.C. § 552, from the United States Depa rtment of J ustice (“ DOJ”), the National Cente r for Missing and Exploited Chi ldren (“NCMEC”) and the International Centre for

Missing and Exploited Chi ldren (“ I CMEC”). Both NCMEC and I CMEC have be en dismissed from the c ase. SeeOrde r of Ma y 26, 2010 [Dkt. # 39] . DOJ has moved separ ately for pa rtial summary

judgme nt as to the Executive Offic e for United States Attorney s (“EO USA”) [Dkt. # 46], t he F eder al B urea u of Investig ation (“F BI ”) [Dkt. # 47], and I NTERPOL -U.S. National Centra l Bure au (“ USNCB” or “I NTERPOL ”) [Dkt. # 48]. Mr. L azaridis has opposed e ach motion and DO J has filed r eplies. Upon c onsideration of the parties’ submissi ons and the re levant par ts of the re cord, the Court will gra nt in part and de ny

in part DOJ’s mot ions as to EOUSA and the F BI and will deny

the motion as to USNCB.I. BACKG ROUND Mr. L azaridis, who re sides in Gree ce, a lleg es that on August 22, 2005, he submitt ed thre e F OIA re quests to DOJ for r ecor ds maintained by EOUSA, the F BI

and USNCB. Compl. ¶ 9. He re quested “ written audio, video or elec tronic re cords” perta ining to himself and V.L . “datingfrom 2002 to 2005.” Id . ¶ 10. DOJ denied Mr. L azaridis’ re quests beca use of his alleg ed fug itive status. Id . ¶ 11. On Nove mber 13, 2008, Mr. L azaridis submitt ed four reque sts to DOJ for the sa

me ty pe of r ecor ds but “datingfrom 2002 to 2008.” Id . ¶ 13. USNCB de nied Mr. L azaridis’ re quest for V .L .’s re cords ba sed on its determination that he w as in violation of two state cour

t judgments a

war ding c ustody

of V.L . to his ex -wife and, thus, “lac k[ed] the capa city to make a [FO I A] request for [hi s] daughter ’s re cords on he r beha lf[.] ” Id . ¶ 14 (quoting “De nial of Mar ch 27, 2009”)

.

Mr. L azaridis filed this civil action on J une 29, 2009. On Ma y 26, 2010, the Court rejec ted DOJ’s argument that the fug itive disentitl ement doctr ine applied to this case and denied its motion to di smiss under Fe d. R. Civ. P . 12(b)( 6). See Mem. Op. [Dkt. # 38] at 9. DOJ has now proce ssed Mr. L azaridis’ F OIA re quest. The r esults are summarized as follows.

1. EOUSA Recor ds By letter of July

2, 2010, EOUSA re lease d to Mr. L azaridis 32 pag es of responsive material, 19 of which wer e re dacte d, and withheld 244 pag es in their entire ty . Second Dec l. of Dione Jackson Sterns (“Sec ond Sterns Dec l.”) [Dkt. # 46-1], Ex . H. EOUSA a lso ref err ed 13 pag es to the F BI and informe d Mr. L azaridis that he could obtain public r ecor ds in its possession from the cour

t or by submitt ing a

new r equest that would be subject to copying f ees. EOUSA withheld information under F OIA exemptions 3, 5, 6 and 7(C), seeU.S.C. § 552(b), and
2Privacy

Act exemption (j)(2), 5 U.S.C. § 552a. Id . By letter of July

6, 2010, EOUSA, with reg ard to re cords r efe rre d from the F BI , rele ased one reda cted pa g e and w ithheld six pag es of information, one of

which wa s determined non- responsive to the r equest. It withheld information under

FOIA exemptions 5, 6 and 7(C) and Privac y Act exemption (j)(2). Supp. Dec l. of Dione Jackson Sterns (“Ster ns Supp. Decl.”) [Dkt. # 63-1] , Ex . BB [Dkt. # 63-2]

. 2. FB IRecords By letters of June 11, 2010, and June 22, 2010, the FB Irele ased to Mr. L azaridis a total of 505 pag es of r esponsive mater ial, 231 of which w ere reda cted, a nd withheld 840 pag es in their entire ty . Second De cl. of Da vid M. Hardy

(“Sec ond Har dy

Dec l”) [Dkt. # 47-1] ¶ 33. This deter mination included 97 pag es re fer red f rom I NTERPOL

and 13 pag es re fer

red f rom EOUSA. Id . The F BI

withheld information under FOIA exemptions 2, 3, 6, 7(C) and 7(D) a nd Privacy Act exemption (j)(2). Id

.

3. USNCB Rec ords Followingthe Court’s ruling , USNCB conduc ted a se arc h, located 139 pa g es of responsive r ecor ds – nine of which ha d been pr eviously located by

a sea rch c onducted in 2005 – and re fer red 100 of

those pag es to the F BI

for pr ocessing . Dec l. of Allison M. Tanaka ( “Ta naka Dec l.”) [Dkt. # 48-1] ¶¶ 10, 18. In J une 2010, USNCB pr ocesse d the re maining 39 pa g es and 22 pag es re fer

red f rom the F BI

and dete rmined that none of the pag es could be rele ased to Mr. L azaridis. USNCB invoked F OIA exemptions 2, 6, 7(A), 7(C) and 7( D). Id . ¶ 21. USNCB ha s since withdra

wn its invocation of exemption 7(A) “a nd will be rele asingcer

tain information/documents for which this exempti on was initially claimed.” Second De cl. of Allison M. Tanaka

(“Sec ond Tana

ka De cl.”) [Dkt. # 66-1] ¶ 3.

3II. LEGAL STANDARD Summary judgme nt is appropriate “if the mova nt shows [ throug h fac ts supported in the rec ord] that there is no g enuine dispute a s to any materia l fac t and the movant is entitled to judgme nt as a matter

of law.” F E D . R. C I V . P. 56(a); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, I nc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). This proc edura l device is not a “ disfavore d leg al shortcut” but a rea soned and
car eful wa

y to resolve c ases f

airly and expeditiously

. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 327 (1986). In deter

mining whe ther a

g enuine issue of

materia l fac t exi sts, the Court mustview all fac ts and rea sonable infe renc es in the lig ht most favorable to the non-moving party . Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio , 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Tao v. Freeh , 27 F.3d 635, 638 (D.C. Cir. 1994).

Summary judgme nt is the freque nt vehicle f or re solution of a FOIA ac tion beca use the plea dings a

nd decla rations in such ca ses often pr ovide undisputed fac ts on which the moving pa

rties ar e entitled to judg ment as a matter of law

. McLaughlin v. U.S. De p’t of Justice , 530 F. Supp.2d 210, 212 (D.D .C. 2008) (citations omitted). Ag encie s may rely on aff idavits or decla rations of g overnme nt officials, a s long a s they are sufficie ntly

clea r and de tailed and submitt ed in g ood faith. See Oglesby v . United States Dep't of the Army , 920 F.2d 57, 68 ( D.C. Cir. 1990). The Court may awa rd summary

judgme nt solely

on the basis of infor

mation provided in such aff

idavits or decla

rations when the y

descr ibe “the doc uments and the justifications for nondisclosure with re asonably 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
rec ord nor by

evidenc e of a g ency

bad fa ith.” Milit ary

Audit Project v. Casey , 656 F.2d 724, 738 (D.C. Cir. 1981); see also Vaughn v . Rosen , 484 F.2d 820, 826- 28 (D.C. Cir. 1973), cert. de nied , 4415 U.S. 977 (1974). Howe ver, the Court must “construe F OIA exemptions narrowly in favor of disclosure.” U.S. Dep’ t of Justice v. Landano , 508 U.S. 165, 181 (1993).

An inadequate sea

rch f or re cords a lso constitutes an improper withholding under the FO I A. See M

aydak v . U.S. Dep’ t of Justice , 254 F. Supp. 2d 23, 44 (D.D .C. 2003) (citations omitted). Thus, when a

n ag ency ’s sea

rch is questioned, the Court must determine the ade quacy of the a g ency ’s sea

rch, guided by

principles of r easona

bleness. See Campbe ll v. U.S. Dep’ t of Justice , 164 F.3d 20, 28 ( D.C. Cir. 1998). The a g ency is require d “to make a

g ood faith ef

fort to conduct a sear ch for

the re quested re cords, usingmethods which ca n rea sonably

be expected to produce the information re quested.” Oglesby , 920 F.2d at 68. Such methods include following throug h “on obvious leads.” Valencia-Luce na v. U.S. Coast Guard , 180 F.3d 321, 325 ( D.C. Cir. 1999) (c itation omit ted). Althoug h an ag ency need not se arc h ever

y rec ord sy stem, it “cannot limit its searc h to only

one re cord sy stem if there are others that ar e likely to turn up the information re quested.” Oglesby , 920 F.2d at 68. Be cause the ag ency is the possessor of the
rec ords and is re sponsible for conduc ting the se arc h, the Court may rely on “[a] reasonably detailed a ffidavit, settingforth the se arc h terms and the ty pe of se arc h perf

ormed, a nd aver ring that all files likely

to contain re sponsive materia ls (if such re cords e x ist) were sear ched.” Valencia-Luce na , 180 F.3d at 326 (quoting Oglesby , 920 F.2d at 68). Summary judgme nt is inappropriate “if a

revie w of the r ecor d raises substantial doubt” a bout the adequa cy

of the
sear ch. Id . “[T] he [mere] fac t that a par ticular doc ument was not found doe s not demonstrate the inadequa cy

of a se arc h,” howe ver. Boyd v . Criminal Div. of U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 475 F.3d 381, 390-91 (D.C. Cir. 2007) ( citations omitt ed); see Iturralde v. Comptroller of Currency , 315 F.3d 311, 315 ( D.C. Cir. 2003) (“the adequa cy of a F OIA sea

rch is g ener ally

deter mined not by
5the fruits of the se arc h, but by the appr opriatene ss of the methods used to ca rry out the sear ch.”) (citation omitted). III. ANALYSIS

EOUSA’s Response Mr. L azaridis challeng es EOUSA’ s withholding of r esponsive material under FOIA exemptions 3, 5, 6 and 7(C) and questions the ade quacy of its searc h. Pl.’s Mem. of L aw in Opp’n to Def

. United States Dep’ t of J ustice’s Mot. for Par tial Summ . J . as to the EOUSA (“Pl.’s Opp’n Me m.”) [Dkt. # 55] at 1. A. EOUSA’

s Search for Rec ords In his request dated August 22, 2005, and addre ssed to EOUSA in Washington, D.C., Mr. L azaridis stated that “[i] n addition to recor ds that may be stored at your ce ntral location, additional re cords may exis t in y our field of

fice s in the Western District of the State of Michig an, par

ticularly in the office s of United States Attorney Marg are t Chiara and A ssistant United States Attorney

Michae l MacDona ld.” Second Stear ns. Dec l., Ex . A [Dkt. # 46-2] at 1. EOUSA is the administrative ar m of the 94 United States Attorne y ’s Off ices (“ USAO”) located throug hout the country . Stearns Supp. Dec l. ¶ 2. Be cause USAO files “a re loc ated in 100 separ ate of

fice s . . . EOUSA re quires re questers to identify the spec ific U.S. Attorney ’s offic e(s) wher e the r equeste r believe s the reque sted rec ords exist .” Id . ¶ 3. B ased on the information Mr. L azaridis provided in his reque st, EOUSA “aske d the [USAO] for the Wester n District of Michig an (WDMI ) to conduc t a [searc h for r esponsive re cords],” id . ¶ 5, which it did via “[t] he computer c ase tra ckingsy stem, the L eg al Information Of fice Networ

k Sy stem (“L I ONS”) . . . .” Second Stear

ns Dec l. ¶ 17. Parale g al Kristina Z elasko in the WDMI , confirms that in 2005, she

6sear ched L I ONS by Mr. L azaridis’ name and “w as able to asce rtain the USAO numbe r . . . and to confirm” the identity

of the re quester. Dec l. of Kristina Z elasko (“ Z elasko De cl.”) [Dkt. # 46-2, 1 Ex . J ] ¶ 5. On Novembe r 10, 2009, Ms. Z elasko sea rche d L I ONS ag ain by

Mr. L azaridis’ name, “ asce rtain[ed] t he orig inal sear ch information and that no additional information . . . was available [,] retrie ved the c ase f ile from the c losed file room a nd provided EOU SA with a pag e count.” Id . ¶ 13. Ms. Stearns states that “[a]fter completingthe computer sear ch . . . [Ms.] Z elasko . . . sea

rche d the Criminal Files Index and reque sted that all of the Criminal Assistant U.S. Attorney s . . . determine if they maintain any

responsive f

iles.” Second Stea

rns Dec l. ¶ 17. But Ms. Z elasko make s no such statements in her decla ration. In addition, neither Ms. Stearns nor Ms. Z elasko ha s expl ained why the re quester’ s name wa s the only sear ch ter

m utili zed when Ms. Z elasko ha d identified a U SAO criminal file number and, ac cording

to Ms. St ear

ns, information is retrie vable f rom L I ONS by

name, f ile jacke t number and district c ourt ca se number. Id . Given this omissi on, the Court cannot f ind on the curr ent re cord that EOUSA conducte d a sea

rch r easona

bly calc ulated to locate all responsive r ecor ds. There fore , summary judgme nt on the adequa cy of EOUSA’ s sear ch is denied.

Contrary

to Mr. L azaridis’ ar g ument based on his alleg ed custodial pa rent status, Pl.’s 1 Opp’n at 6, DOJ was not re quired to sea rch f or third-pa

rty rec ords per

taining to his daughter, V.L
. SeeMem. Op. of Ma y 26, 2010 [Dkt. # 38] at 5, n.3 (implicitly finding the unsettled issues surroundingV.L .’s custody beyond the scope of this FOIA ac tion). Elsewher e, Mr. L azaridis claims that “ther e ca

n be no expectation of pr ivacy betwee n him and V.L .,” Response to De f. DOJ’s S tatement of Material F acts a s to W hich Ther e is No Ge nuine I ssue Submitt ed on B ehalf of the F BI

and Statement of G enuine I ssues [Dkt. # 64] ¶ 4, but this statement ignor es the re ality that “a disc losure made to any FOI A re quester is e ffe ctively a disclosure to the world at lar g e.” Students Against Genocide v . Dep't of State , 257 F.3d 828, 836 ( D.C. Cir. 2001). 7B. EOUSA’ s Claimed Exem

ptions 1. Ex emption 3 FOIA Exempti on 3 cover s rec ords that ar e “spe cifica lly exempted from disclosure by

statute . . . provided that suc h statute either “ (A) [requir es withholding] in such a
manner as to leave no discretion on the issue,” or “( B) establishes par ticular c riteria f

or withholding or r efe rs to particula r ty pes of matter s to be withheld.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)( 3); see Senate of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v . U. S. Dep’ t of Justice , 823 F.2d 574, 582 ( D.C. Cir. 1987). EOUSA applied this exemption to 185 page s of g rand jury testimony . Second Stearns De cl. ¶ 22 & Summary of Withheld/R edac ted Docume nts (“Revised Vaughn index”) [Dkt. # 63-2] (Doc . Nos. 33-35). The Fe dera l Rules of Criminal P roce dure pr ohibit dis closure of “matter s occur

ringbefor e [a] gra

nd jury .” F ed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(2) ; see I n re: M otions of Dow Jones &Co., Inc. , 142 F.3d 496, 498- 501 (D.C. Cir. 1998). Criminal Rule 6(e) qua lifies as a statute under e x emption 3, beca use it was af

firmatively

enac ted by

Congr ess. See F

und for Constit utional Governme nt v. National Archives and Rec ords Service , 656 F.2d 856, 867- 68 (D.C. Cir. 1981). The Court of Appea ls for the District of Columbia Circuit has limited the g rand jury

exception to material, which, if disc losed, would “tend to re veal some se cre t aspec t of the g rand jury ’s investig ation, such matters a s the identities of witnesses or juror s, the substance of testimony , the strategy or direc tion of the investigation, the deliberations or questions of jurors, and the like.” Senate of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico , 823 F.2d at 582 (quoting SEC v. Dre sser Indus., Inc ., 628 F.2d 1368, 1382 ( D.C. Cir. 1980) ( en banc )). EO USA proper ly justified withholding g rand jury testimony

in its entirety

beca use its relea se “w ould reve al the

8scope of

the g rand jury

and the dire ction of the investig ation by providing the identities of the targ ets . . . the sourc e of the evidenc e, as w ell as the a ctual evide nce pr oduced be fore the g rand jury .” Second Stea

rns Dec l. ¶ 24. 2. Ex emption 5 Ex emption 5 protects fr om disclosure “inter -ag ency or intra- ag ency

memorand[a] or letters which would not be ava ilable by law to a pa

rty other than a

n ag ency in liti g ation with the ag ency .” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5) . “[T] he par ameter s of Exempti on 5 are deter mined by ref ere nce to the pr otections ava ilable to litigants in civil discovery ; if material is not ‘ava ilable’ in discovery , it may

be withheld fr om FOIA re questers.” Burka v. U .S. Dep’ t of Health and Human Serv

s ., 87 F.3d 508, 516 ( D.C. Cir. 1996); acc ord Sussman v. U.S. M arshals Service , 494 F.3d 1106, 1112 ( D.C. Cir. 2007) (citingcase s).

EOUSA applied this exemption to 24 whole pag es and one reda cted pa g e of information. Second Stear ns Dec l. ¶ 28 & Revised Vaughn index (Docs. 1, 7, 31, 32); Stearns Supp. Decl., Ex. CC [Dkt. # 63-2] (Supp. Vaughn index). The withheld rec ords ar e desc ribed a s containingattorney

work produc t and deliber ative proc ess mater ial with reg ard to “ L azaridis’ pendingkidnappingcase ,” Second Stea rns Dec l. ¶ 27, including “information reflec ting the deliberative proce ss of the USAO-WDMI and other fede ral a nd state ag encie s in their consideration of possible criminal actions ag ainst the [si c] L azaridis.” Id . ¶ 28. Ninete en pag es
are descr ibed as a

n “attorne y ’s summary

of litigation,” one docume nt is a two-pag e letter from an AUSA to the FB I“pre pare d in contemplation of litigation,” and one pa g e is descr ibed as a n “attorne y ’s dra ft” of a

n “[u] ndated one -pag e chr onology of a c ase.” Revised Vaughn index (Doc s. 1, 31, 32). The r emainingdocument, a one -pag e letter to an AUSA fr om an attorne y , was

9rele ased w ith the attorney ’s handwr itten notes reda cted. Id . (Doc . 7). Simil arly , EOUSA

withheld from the suppleme ntal rele ase of rec ords re fer

red f rom the F BI , a two-pa g e letter to an FB Iag ent from a

n AUSA “pr epar ed in contemplation of litig ation.” Supp. Vaughn index (Doc. 1). Ac cordingto Ms. St ear ns, “[t] he attorne y

work produc t and deliber ative proc ess ar e so interwove n as to make it all, in essenc e, attorne y work produc t.” Second Stear ns Dec l. ¶ 28. EOUSA prope rly

applied exemption 5 to the withheld material pre dominantly as attorney work produc t but also as deliberative proce ss material. See Tax Analysts v. Internal Rev enue Se rv ., 117 F.3d 607, 616 ( D.C. Cir. 1997) (quoting W olfe v. De p’t of Health &Human Servs ., 839 F.2d 768, 774 ( D.C. Cir. 1988) (en ba nc)) (The de liberative pr ocess pr ivilege “shields only g overnme nt ‘materia ls which are both prede cisional and de liberative.’ ”); Hegge stad v. United States Dep’ t of Justice , 182 F. Supp.2d 1, 7 (D.D .C. 2000) (“The primary purpose of

[t he attorney work produc t privileg e] is to protect ag ainst disclosure the menta l impressions, conclusions, opinions, or leg al theorie s of an attorney or other r epre sentative of a party
conce rninglitigation.”) (citingFe d. R. Civ. P . 26(b)( 3)). F urthermor e, the Court finds that EOUSA prope rly

withheld 24 pag es conta ining suc h materia l in their entirety

. See M artin v. Office of Spec ial Counsel, Merit Systems Protection Board , 819 F.2d 1181, 1187 ( D.C. Cir. 1987) (“ The wor

k-produc t privileg e simply does not distinguish betwe en fa ctual and de liberative materia l [ for se g reg ability considera

tion] . . . . [I ]f the work-pr oduct privileg e prote cts the documents at issue he re, Exemption (b)(5) pr otects them as we ll, reg ardle ss of their status as “fa ctual” or

“deliber ative.”)

. 3. Ex emptions 6 and 7(C) Recog nized as the persona l privacy exemptions , FOIA exemption 6 protects from disclosure “ personne l and medica l files and similar files the disclosure of which w ould constitute 10a cle arly

unwar rante d invasion of per sonal privac y ,” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6) ; exempti on 7 protec ts from disclosure “re cords or information compiled for law enf orce ment purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enfor ceme nt rec ords or infor mation . . .” would ca

use
cer tain enumer ated ha

rms, § 552(b)( 7). EOUSA invoked e x emptions 6 and 7(C) jointly to withhold third-party

information. See Revised Vaughn index (Docs. 1, 5-6, 8-31, 33- 35); Supp. Vaughn index (Docs. 1-5). 2

Ms. Stearns states that the “ USAO-WDMIcompiled all of the infor mation contained in the r esponsive cr iminal file and the Vic tim/W itness file for the law enf orce ment purpose of

prosec uting L azaridis for a lleg ed par ental kidnapping/interfer ence with pare ntal rig hts offe nse.” Sec ond Stearns De cl. ¶ 34. The fac t that the office “dec lined prosec ution,” id . ¶ 33, does not cha

ng e the law

enfor ceme nt purpose for which the r ecor ds were compiled. Thus, the Court will address only

EOUSA’s a

pplication of exemption 7(C) to the withheld material. 3 Ex emption 7(C) protec ts the identities of suspects, witnesses a nd other pe rsons of investig atory interest who a

re ide ntified in ag ency

rec ords in connec tion with allege d criminal ac tivity

. Computer Professionals for Soc. Responsibili ty v. U.S. Se cret Se rvice , 72 F. 3d 897, 904 ( D.C. Cir. 1996) (noting“stronginterest of individuals, whethe r they be suspec ts, witnesses, or investigators, in not being a ssociated unwa rra ntedly with alleg ed criminal activity ” (quoting Dunke lberger v. D OJ

, 906 F.2d 779, 781 ( D.C. Cir. 1990)). F or the same kinds of protec tive

Given the Court’s f

inding that EO USA proper ly withheld Documents 1, 31, 32 a nd 2 Supp. Document 1 in their entire ty under e x emption 5, the application of e x emptions 6 and 7(C) to portions of those same doc uments will not be addresse d. See U.S. Dep’ t of Justice v. Re porters Comm. for Freedom of the Pre ss , 489 U.S. 749, 3 758 (1989) ( finding “Exemption 7(C)’s privacy languag e broa der tha

n the compar able languag e in Ex emption 6")

. 11rea sons, the names of la w enf orce ment office rs who wor k on criminal investig ations have usua lly been pr otected a g ainst relea se by exemption 7(C). Lesar v. DOJ , 636 F.2d 472, 487 ( D.C. Cir. 1980). Be cause third-par ty identifying inf

ormation is “categ orica lly exempt” from disclosure unde r exemption 7(C), Nation Magazine, W ashington Bureau v. U.S. Customs Servic e , 71 F.3d 885, 896 ( D.C. Cir. 1995), EOUSA, havingno third-par ty waiver s or proofs of death, pr operly

reda cted suc h information from r elea sed docume nts 5, 8, 9, 10, and 25. See Revised Vaughn index. EOUSA’s withholdi ngof portions of a te n-pag e cour t judgment ( Doc. 6), howe ver, is inconsistent with what is either the same doc ument as, or one simil ar to, Doc . 4, which wa s relea sed complete ly

. See id . Fur thermore , the desc ription and justification sections perta ining to Doc . 6 appea r to ref er to diff ere nt documents insofar a s the document is desc ribed as a “ [t ]en-pag e judg ment” whe rea s the justification section re fer s to “the letter.” Given this confusion, the Court will deny summary judgme nt to EOUSA on its partial withholding of Doc

. 6. The prote ctive scope of exemption 7(C) “ordinar ily” is limit ed to " the spec ific information to which it applies [ i.e ., names, a ddresse s and other ide ntifying inf ormation], [ but] not the entire pa g e or doc ument in which the information appear s[.] " Mays v . DEA , 234 F.3d 1324, 1327 (D.C. Cir. 2000). Thus, whe n, as her e, entire documents ar e withheld under exemption 7(C), the ag ency must show that the “ ‘e x empt and nonexempt information are ‘inextricably

intertwined,’ suc h that the excision of exempt i nformation would . . . produc e an edited docume nt with lit tle informational value .’ ” Mays , 234 F.3d at 1327 (quoting Neufeld v. IRS, 646 F.2d 661, 666 ( D.C. Cir. 1981)). Ms. Stearns states that “the mater ial withheld in its entirety contained no me aning ful portions that could be re lease d without destroying the integ rity 12of the doc ument . . . .” Second Stea rns Dec l. ¶ 41. In addition, it is noted in the Revised Vaughn index wit h reg ard to the doc uments withheld in their entirety under e x emptions 6 and 7(C) that the “[e]x empt information is so inex tricably intertwined with any

nonexempt information that it cannot be meaning fully

seg reg ated f

or re lease .” See Docs. 12-17, 20- 24, 26-30 and Supp. Vaughn index, Docs. 2-4.

Disclosure of

the otherw ise protec ted information may be compe lled upon a showing that the public intere st – i.e ., that the withheld information is nec essar y to confirm or ref ute “c ompelling e vidence that the ag ency deny ing the FOIA re quest is eng ag ed in illeg al activity ,” Quinon v. FBI

, 86 F.3d 1222, 1231 ( D.C. Cir. 1996) -- outwe ighs the privac y interests at stake. The public interest “sought to be advanc ed [must be] a significant one more spec ific than havingthe information for [one’s] own sake,” howe ver. National Archive s and Records Administrati on v. Fav ish , 541 U.S. 157, 172 (2004). In makingsuch a showing , a plaintiff must
asser t “more tha

n a bar e suspicion” of

officia l 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.

Mr. L azaridis seems to claim that disclosure is warr anted be cause the re quested documents will assist him i n provingviolations under Brady v. M aryland , 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and future claims under Bivens v . Six Unknown Named A gents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971). SeePl.’s Opp’n Mem at 14; Res. in Opp’n to De f. United States De p’t of J ustice’s Mot. for Par

tial Summ . J . as to the EOUSA [Dkt. # 55] at 1. As a g ener al rule applicable here , howeve r, the identity of the re quester a

nd purpose of

the re quest are immaterial to the resolution of a F OIA claim. U.S. Dep't of Justice v . Reporters Comm. for Free dom of the 13Press , 489 U.S. 749, 770-71 (1989); Loving v. Dep’ t of Defense, 550 F.3d 32, 39 ( D.C. Cir.

2008). F urthermor e, the public inter est in disclosure " does not include he lping a n individual obtain information for his pe rsonal use." Oguaju v. U.S. , 288 F.3d 448, 450 ( D.C. Cir. 2002), vacate d and remande d on other grounds , 124 S.Ct . 1903 (2004), reinstated , 378 F.3d 1115 ( D.C. Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). Mr. L azaridis’ spec ulative and c onclusory claims of employ ee misconduct provide no c ounterwe ight to the strongthird-par ty privac y interests shielded by exemption 7(C).

For the fore g oing r easons, the Court f inds that DOJ is entitled to summ ary judgme nt on EOUSA’s application of exempti ons 3, 5 and 7(C) to the withheld infor mation, except its application of exemption 7(C) to Document 6, which re mains questionable. In addition, the Court finds that DOJ is not entitl ed to summary judgme nt on the adequa cy of EOUSA’s sea

rch f or re sponsive rec ords. Henc e, the motion as to EOUSA will be grante d in part and denie d in part without prejudice to rec onsideration af ter supplementation of the rec ord. FB I ’s Response Mr. L azaridis challeng es the F BI ’s withholding of responsive material unde r FOIA exemptions 3, 6, 7(C) and 7(D) a nd questions the adequa cy of its searc h. Pl.’s Mem. of L aw in Opp’ n to Def. United States Dep’t of J ustice’s Mot. for Par

tial Summ . J . as to the F BI (“Pl.’s Opp’n Me m.”) [Dkt. 64] at 1; id . at 13 (“ The F BI ’s Application of F OIA Exempti on 2 I s Not Contested”). A. FBI’ s Search for Rec ords Followingthe Court’s initial ruling, the F BI sear ched its Centra l Records Sy stem (“CRS”) “utilizing a six-way phonetic bre akdown of

L azaridis’ name . . . .” Second H ardy Dec l. ¶ 32. In addition to the name, the F BI sear ched by

Mr. L azaridis’ birth date, bir thplace, soc ial 14secur ity

number a nd prior addr esses. Id . I t located two main f iles in the Detroit Fie ld Office containing1,243 pag es of r esponsive re cords. The sear ch identified no c ross-re fer ence files. Id

. Mr. Har dy

has provided a

detailed de scription of the CRS and retrie val methods, see id at ¶¶ 26- 31, and has e x plained why the Gene ral Indices to the CRS files are the means by which the F BI can de termine wha

t retrieva ble information, if a

ny , it may have in its CRS files on a pa rticular individual. Id . ¶ 31; Reply Mem. in Supp. of United States DOJ’s Mot . for Par tial Summ . J . as to the FB I[Dkt. # 67] , Third Dec l. of David M. Ha rdy (“Thir d Har dy

Dec l.”) [Dkt. # 67-1] ¶¶ 16-20. Contrary

to Mr. L azaridis’ ar g ument that the sea rch did not include “ rele vant” field off ices, Pl.’s Opp’n Me m. at 8, Mr. Har dy states that “[a]ccess to the CRS files in FB Ifield office s is also obtained throug h the Gene ral Indices . . . .” Second Ha rdy Dec l. ¶ 28. “The entries in the Ge nera l Indices fa ll into t wo categ ories: [] A ‘main’ e ntry , or ‘main’ file . . . [and] A ‘re fer ence ’ entry

. . . sometimes called a

‘cr oss-ref

ere nce’ . . . .” Id . ¶ 27. In addition, Mr. Har dy states that “the F BI

went above and beyond its normal searc h proce dures . . . a nd contac ted Special Ag ent[s] . . . Roberta Gillig an and . . . Scott Duf fey in response to plaintiff’ s alleg ations that they still had [responsive] documents . . . that had not bee n filed in the CRS.” Third Hardy Dec l. ¶ 20. Acc ordingto Mr. Har dy , both ag ents “stated a ll the information they had
acc umulated re g ardingthe plaintiff had be en [] filed and inde x ed to ACS [ Automated Case Support] , and is no long er in their posse ssion.” Id . The Court is satisfied fr om Mr. Har dy ’s 4 decla rations that the F BI

conducte d a re asonably

adequate sea

rch f or re cords, whic h in fac t located a main file on Mr. L azaridis.
“B eca use the CRS cannot elec tronically query the ca se files for

data, suc h as an 4 individual’s name or soc ial secur ity number, the r equire d information is duplicated a nd moved to the ACS so that it can be sea rche d.” Second H ardy

Dec l. ¶ 29. 15B. FBI’ s Claimed Exem

ptions 1. Ex emption 3 The F BI withheld under this exemption federa l gr and jury subpoenas, the na

mes and identifying inf

ormation of individuals subpoenae d to testify befor e the grand jury , “information that identifies specific r ecor ds subpoenae d by the Fe dera l Grand Jury , and F eder al Gra nd J ury meeting s.” Second H ardy Dec l. ¶ 44. The infor

mation was withheld bec ause “ [a] ny such disclosure w ould clear ly violate the sec rec y

of the g rand jury

proce eding s and could re veal the inner w orking s of the fe dera l gr and jury that considere d the ca se.” Id

. For the re asons pre viously

stated in approvingEOUSA’s withholdingof grand jury testimony , the Court finds that the FB I proper ly withheld all of the for eg oing inf ormation, except what the Court assumes a re dates of “F eder al Gra

nd J ury meeting s.” See Lopez v . Dep’ t of Justice , 393 F.3d 1345, 1347 ( D.C. Cir. 2005) (conf irming that “dates on which g rand jury subpoenas a

nd reque sts for produc tion, writs of testificandum and w itness debrief ings a re a ll items that inherently

reve al sec ret matter s occur ringbefor e the grand jury . . . .”). Mr . Har dy

has not stated how disclosure of the grand jury ’s meetingdates would re veal its inner wor king. See Peay v. De p’t of Justice , 2007 WL788871 at *3 (D.D .C., Mar. 14, 2007) ( denying summar y judgme nt where DOJ failed to “explain[ ] how the disclosure of the dates the g rand jury convene d would tend to reve al a “ secr et aspe ct” of the g rand jury

investigation . . . .”). Absent c larification of what, if not dates, is the information per taining to “ Fe dera l Grand Jury meeting s,” DOJ will be require d to relea se that information. See id . at *4 (dire ctingthe re lease of “the dates on whic h the g rand jury

convene d”).

162. Ex emptions 6 and 7(C) The F BI withheld information under exemption 6 i n conjunction with exemption 7(C). Second H ardy

Dec l. ¶¶ 47-48. “ [T] he F BI located r esponsive re cords [that] were c ompiled
. . . as a r esult of a c riminal investigation into an alleg ed illeg al re location of L azaridis’ minor child outside the United States, base d on authority provided in the International Parental KidnappingCrime Act of 1993, 18 U .S.C. § 1204.” Second Har dy Dec l. ¶ 35. Be cause the
rec ords wer e compiled f

or law e nforc ement purpose s, the Court will address only the FB I ’s application of e x emption 7(C). As previously deter mined with reg ard to EOU SA, the Court finds that the FB Iproper ly invoked exemption 7(C) to redac t the names a nd identifying information of F BI

Special Ag ents and support pe rsonnel, Second H ardy Dec l. ¶¶ 49-50, a

nd that of other third- party

individuals of various categ ories. Id . ¶¶ 52- 60. The Court also finds that Mr. L azaridis has provided no e vidence of an ove rriding public interest re quiringdisclosure of the otherwise pr otected inf ormation. In addition to seeking the information for

his personal use, which the Court pre viously deter mined is not a valid public interest, Mr. L azaridis sug g ests that some information has be en publically reve aled. See Pl.’s Opp’n Mem. at 16. Under the public domain theory , FOIA-e x empt information loses its protec tion if it was previously “disclosed a

nd prese rved in a

perma nent public re cord.” Cottone v. Re no , 193 F.3d 550, 553- 54 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (c itations omi tted). Howe ver, Mr . L azaridis has “ ‘the initial burden of pointing to spe cific infor mation in the public domain [ by officia l disclosure] that appea

rs to duplicate that be ing w ithheld.’ ” W olf v. CIA , 473 F.3d 370, 378 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (quoting Afshar v. Dep't of State , 702 F.2d 1125, 1130 ( D.C. Cir. 1983)). Mr. L azaridis cites a de famation case he filed in the Western District of Mic higa n, Pl.’s Opp’n Mem.

17at 16, which wa s dismis sed under the fug itive disentitl ement doctr ine. See Lazaridis v. Herald Co., Inc. , 2006 WL222839 (W.D. Mich., J an. 26, 2006). H e has not shown what, if any , of the protec ted information is in the public domain. The Court ther efor e finds that DOJ is entitl ed to summary judgme nt on the FB I ’s application of exempti on 7(C) to the withheld mater ial. 3. Ex emption 7(D) FOIA Exempti on 7(D) a llows the withholding of r ecor ds if their disclosure “ could
rea sonably

be expected to disclose the identity of a c onfidential sourc e. . . .” 5 U .S.C. § 552(b) (7)( D). “ [I ]n t he ca se of a rec ord or infor

mation compiled by

criminal law e nforc ement author ity in the course of a c riminal investigation,” the ag ency may also withhold “information fur nished by a conf idential source .” Id . A conf idential source includes “a State, local, or f

oreig n ag ency

or authority or any private institution which furnished infor mation on a conf

idential basis.” Id . The “par amount objective” of this exempti on “is to keep ope n the Gover nment’s cha

nnels of confide ntial information.” Birch v. U.S. P ostal Serv. , 803 F.2d 1206, 1212 ( D.C. Cir. 1986).

When invoking Exemption 7(D), an a g ency must demonstrate, throug h the use of
rea sonably

detailed a ffidavits, that the infor mation was compiled for

a law e nforc ement purpose , that an informa

nt provided the infor

mation under e ither an e x press or implied promise of confide ntiality

and that disclosure could re asonably be expected to disclose the source ’s identity

. Landano , 508 U.S. at 171-72. An e x press a ssuranc e of c onfidentiality is shown by

an ag ency ’s proff er of “probative evidenc e that the sourc e did in fac t rec eive a n express g rant of confide ntiality .” Campbell , 164 F.3d at 34 (quoting Davin v. U .S. Dep’ t of Justice , 60 F.3d 1043, 1061 (3d Cir. 1995)). Such e vidence may take many

forms, such a s notations on the fac e of the withheld doc ument, an off icial’s per sonal knowledg e about the sour ce, a statement fr om
18the source , or docume nts discussing pra ctices or policies for de alingwith the source at issue or simil arly situated source s. Id . When the ag ency claims an implied assura nce of confide ntiality , the prope r inquiry

is “whethe r the pa

rticular sour ce spoke with an under standing that the communication would re main confide ntial.” Landano, 508 U.S. at 172. An implied assuranc e of confide ntiality

may be infe rre d from evide nce show ing the circ umstances surr ounding the imparting of the infor

mation, including the na

ture of the criminal investig ation and the informant’s r elationship to the targ et. Id; Computer Professionals for Social Responsibilit y , 72 F.3d at 905-06.

Under Ex emption 7(D), the F BI withheld the identity

of and infor

mation supplied by a for eig n g overnme nt ag ency under a n express g rant of c onfidentiality , Second Ha rdy Dec l. ¶¶ 64- 65, but Mr. Har dy

does not claim to have any persona l knowledg e of the ag ree ment and he has pre sented no probative evidenc e of suc h an agree ment. There fore , DOJ i s not entitled to summary judgme nt on this claim of an express g rant of c onfidentiality

. The F BI withheld under a

n implied gr ant of c onfidentiality the identity

of and information supplied by

an individual “duringthe cour se of the inve stigation,” id . ¶ 63, and information supplied by

the Ottawa

County , Michig an, Sheriff ’s Depa rtment. Id . ¶ 66. Mr. Har dy states only

that the “individual . . . provid[ed] sensit ive and se cre tive information involving L azaridis which would re asonably raise f ear of re taliation if his/her identity wer e
reve aled.” Id . This ge nera liz ed stateme nt could apply to any law enf orce ment investigation. I t is unknown what re lationship the source ha d to Mr. L azaridis and his or her knowledg e of a

ny alleg ed ac tivity

from which a

rea sonable fe ar of

reta liation may

be found. An investigation of pare ntal kidnappingwithout more does not see m to fit withi n the nar row c ateg ory

of ca ses wher e
19confide ntiality is presumed. See Landano , 508 U.S. at 179-80 (discussing“g ener ic circ umstances” in which an a pplied assura

nce of confide ntiality

fairly can be rea sonably inferr ed); Mays , 234 F.3d at 1330-31 (conc luding that “ we have no doubt that a sourc e of information about a c onspiracy to distribute cocaine ty

pically fac es a suf

ficient thre at of reta liation that the information he provide s should be treated as implicitly confide ntial”). Mr. Har dy ’s bar e asse rtion fails to provide a f actua l basis for findingthat the individual spoke on condition of an implied g rant of c onfidentiality

.

Mr. Har dy

also states that the Sherif f’s De partment provide d to the FB Irepor ts and information obtained duringits “investigation of a complaint filed with re g ard to [Mr. L azaridis’] alleg ed re moval of his daug hter out of the United States, including a n incident repor t,” and that “ a loca l sheriff c ontacted a n FB ISA to provide information conc erningthe investigation[ ,] [ which] was g ather ed by conductinginterviews of third parties.” Id . Ex emption 7(D) se ems inapplicable to this i nformation bec ause the FB I ’s source – the Ottawa County Sheriff’ s Depa

rtment – is identified and, thus, not confide ntial. But e ven if the e x emption 5 applies, Mr. Ha

rdy has not stated any

fac ts from which the Court c an find that “ the par ticular
source [S heriff

’s Depa rtment] spoke [ or conve y ed information] with an under standing that the communication would re main confide ntial.” Landano , 508 U.S. at 172. Mr. Har dy ’s rationale that “disclosure would result in harm to the F BI ’s [] law enf orce ment endea

vors” with, inter alia , local law e nforc ement ag encie s, Second Ha rdy Dec l. ¶ 66, sug g ests the ty pe of “ swee ping presumption” of c onfidentiality that the Supreme Court re jected in f

avor of a “mor e particula rized approa ch.” Landano , 508 U.S. at 175, 180. This finding doe s not preclude the FB Ifrom invokingother e x emptions to protect 5 information obtained f

rom the Sheriff

’s Depa rtment. 20Be cause the FB Ihas not shown that conf idential source s provided informa tion under e ither an e x press or a n implied gr ant of c onfidentiality , the Court will deny summary judgme nt on the FB I ’s invocation of e x emption 7(D). C. Segregability of FBI Rec ords The Court of Appe als for the District of Columbia Circuit has held that a District Court in a FOIA ca se has “ an af firmative duty

to consider the se g reg ability issue sua sponte .” Trans-Pacific Policing Agreem ent v. U.S. Customs Serv

. , 177 F.3d 1022, 1028 ( D.C. Cir. 1999). This directive stems fr om the require ment under 5 U .S.C. § 552(b) that any “re asonably seg reg able” information must be disclosed – that is, information that ca n be sepa rate d from the rest of a document – eve n if the docume nt is otherwise exempt from disclosure, unless the exempt and non-exempt portions are “ine x tricably intertwined with exempt portions.” Id. ; Mead Data Ctr., Inc. v. De

p’t of the Air Force , 566 F.2d 242, 260 ( D.C. Cir. 1977). An ag ency must provide a “deta iled justification” and not just “conc lusory statements” to prove that it has rele ased a ll reasona

bly seg reg able infor

mation. Mead D ata Center, Inc. , 566 F.2d at 261. Mr. Har dy

conclude s that “the F BI

has proc essed a

nd rele ased a ll reasona

bly seg reg able infor

mation . . . ,” Har dy

Dec l. ¶ 69, but he has not sepa rate ly descr ibed the 391 pag es that we re w ithheld in their entirety and discussed the applicable exemptions

. I t is not t he 6 Court’s job to cull the voluminous rec ord and to piec e tog ether such information. The Court is 7

Mr. Har dy

has desc ribed 449 of the 840 pag es withheld complete ly as “duplicates of 6 other re lease d pag es.” Sec ond Har dy Dec l. ¶ 33. The initial Vaughn index consist ing of 1,353 pag es is attache d to Mr. Har dy ’s 7 decla ration as ExhibitS and appea rs on the ele ctronic doc ket as 14 sepa rate attachme nts. Mr. Har dy states that “[t] he F BI

has inserte d ‘dele ted pag e shee ts’ as plac eholder s for the 840 pa g es withheld in full,” Second Ha rdy Dec l. ¶ 37, but he has not listed the pag e number s of the dele ted pag e shee ts. I n supplementing the re cord, D OJ is advised to include the number of the attachme nt where the cited pa g e appe ars. 21without sufficient evide nce to make a segreg ability finding with reg ard to the F BI rec ords and, thus, will deny

summary judgme nt on the FB I ’s withholding of documents in their entire ty . USNCB’S Response Mr. L azaridis challeng es the a dequac y of USNCB’ s sear ch for

responsive r ecor ds and its withholding of infor mation under F OIA exemptions 6, 7(A), 7(C) and 7( D). Pl.’s Mem. of L aw in Opp’ n to Def. United States Dep’t of J ustice’s Mot. for Par

tial Summ . J . as to I NTERPOL -USNCB ( “Pl.’s Opp’n Mem.” ) [Dkt. 56] at 1, 7-11; see id . at 7 (“ USNCB’s Application of F OIA Exempti on 2 I s Not Contested”). USNCB has withdraw n its ex emption 7(A) c laim. Second Tana ka De cl. ¶ 3. Thus, the c ontested issues ar e USNCB’ s sear ch and its invocation of e x emptions 6, 7(C) and 7(D ) to the withheld information.

Ms. Tanaka

has desc ribed USNCB ’s re cord sy stems and the re trieval methods that
are g ener ally

employ ed upon the a g ency ’s re ceipt of a FOIA re quest. See id . ¶¶ 2- 5. As to Mr. L azaridis’ re quest, Ms. Tanaka conclude s that “[a] search of the USNCB’ s sy stem of re cords a nd administrative files wa s conducte d using the methods indicated in #3 and #4.” Id . ¶ 10. Paragraphs 3 a

nd 4 of Ms. Tanaka’s de clar ation descr ibe in g ener al terms how the e ntity sear ches for r ecor ds but they

shed no lig ht on the sear ch for rec ords re sponsive to Mr. L azardis’ re quest; particula rly lackingis any

evidenc e of the sear ch ter ms util ized and the orig in of the re trieved
rec ords. Henc e, the Court is without sufficient evide nce to de termine the a dequac y of USNCB’ s
sear ch for rec ords re sponsive to Mr. L azaridis’ re quest. Fur thermore , the Court cannot de termine the proprie ty

of USNCB’ s withholding of infor mation under e x emption 7 beca use it has no fac tual basis to find that the retr ieved doc uments were compiled for la w enf orce ment purposes. SeeSecond Ta

naka D ecl. ¶

¶ 2-3 ( surmising that the “ two source s of information sea rche d for information that could be r esponsive to [Mr. L azaridis’] request” w ere USNCB’s sy stem of
22rec ords containinglaw enf orce ment and humanitar ian mater ial and its administrative files containing“non-inve stigative topical files . . . ”) . There fore , the Court will deny DOJ’s mot ion for summary

judgme nt as to the USNCB without prejudice to rec onsideration af ter supplementation of the r ecor d. IV. CONCLUSION

For the fore g oing r easons, the Court r ules as follows: (1) D OJ ’s motion for partial summary

judgme nt on EOUSA’s invocation of FOIA exemptions 3, 5 and 7(C), except as to Document 6, is g rante d; as to EOUSA’s sea rch a nd the withholding of

Document 6, the motion is denied without pre judice. (2) DOJ’s mot ion for par tial summary

judgme nt on the FB I ’s sea rch f or re sponsive rec ords and its invocation of e x emptions 7(C) and 3, except as to information per

taining to “ Fe dera l Grand Jury meeting s,” is g rante d; in all other respe cts, the motion is denied without pre judice. (3) DOJ’s mot ion for par tial summary

judgme nt as to I NTERPOL -USNCB is denie d without prejudice. Amemorializing orde r ac companies this Memorandum Opinion. /s/ ROSEMARY M. COL L YER Date: F ebrua

ry 24, 2011 United States District J udg e

23