UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE DIS TRICT OF COLUM BIA Joseph Mosby, P laintif f, v. Civil Action No. 09-1917 (JD B) Wanda H unt et al. , Defendan ts.

MEMORAN DUM OP INION I n what re mains of this action broug ht under the F ree dom of Information Ac t (“F OI A”) , 5 U.S.C. § 552, defenda

nt has submitted in unredac ted form f or in camera revie w the re dacte d documents that we re r elea sed to plaintiff. SeeMemorandum Opinion of Ma y 5, 2010, at 8-9 1 (finding defe ndant’s invocation of FOI A exemptions 2 and 7(F) unsubstantiated). In the
acc ompanying Supplementa l Decla ration of L arr

y Colli ns (“Collins Supp. Decl.”), Collins states that the B urea

u of Prisons (“B OP”) is no long er r elying upon e x emption 2. Id . ¶ 5. He nce, the
rema ining issue is whe ther B OP properly withheld information under exemption 7(F). FOIA exemption 7(F) pr otects fr om disclosure “r ecor ds or information compiled f or law enfor ceme nt purposes” tha t “could re asonably

be expected to e ndang er the life or phy sical saf ety of any individual.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)( F) . “Within l imits , the Court defe rs to the ag ency ' s assessment of da

ng er.” Amuso v. U.S. D ep’t of Justice , 600 F. Supp. 2d 78, 101 (D.D .C. 2009). “In g ener al, this ex emption has bee n interpre ted to apply to names and ide ntifying inf ormation of The doc uments are a one- pag e Memora ndum dated Mar ch 30, 2009, and a one-pa g e 1 form ca ptioned “Reque st for Tra

nsfer /Application of Mana g ement Va riable,” also dated Ma

rch 30, 2009.law enf

orce ment office rs, witnesses, c onfidential informa nts and other third pe rsons who may be unknown to the re quester.” Antonelli v. Fede ral Bureau of Prisons , 623 F. Supp. 2d 55, 58 (D.D.C. 2009) ( citations omitt ed). In a novel twist, defe ndant contends that relea se of the reda cted infor

mation cre ates a

safe ty risk mostly

to plaintiff. SeeColli ns Supp. Decl. ¶¶ 9-11. 2 By its terms, ex emption 7(F) protec ts “any individual,” and, as obse rved by another judge of this Court – albeit in the context of third parties -- “ the Court can imag ine no situation in which an individual would [ knowing ly ] waive his or her r ight to phy sical saf ety -which is the r ight protec ted by

Ex emption 7(F) .” Linn v. U.S. Dep’ t of Justice , 1995 WL417810 *12 (D.D.C., J une 6, 1995); but cf. Ray v . F.B.I. , 441 F. Supp. 2d 27, 37 (D.D .C. 2006) (“In light of [pl aintiff’s] appar ent waive r [of exempti on 7(D)’ s confidential infor mant protec tion] , the Court is not inclined to protect plaintiff fr om information about himself.”) (citations omitted). Plaintiff does not appe ar to have wa ived the prote ction contemplated by exemption 7(F). SeePl.’s Memorandum of

L aw a nd Points of Authoritive (sic) in Support of Above-Reque sted Relief [Dkt. No. 20] at 7 (a ssertingthat “[b] eca use that desc ription does not detail whether Plaintiff was in dang er or

the sort of da

ng er to other s, the vague cla im of this ex emption should not be sustained at this ear ly

stag e”)
. The Court is satisfied fr om its perusal of the r edac ted and unr edac ted documents a nd Colli ns’ justification, see Supp. Decl. ¶¶ 8-12, that B OP rea sonably deter mined that the disclosure of the withheld information could “je opardize the saf ety of individuals(s),” inc luding

The Court did not locate a ny decisions, published or unpublished, addr essing this 2 particula r application of exempti on 7(F ). 2plaintiff. Id . ¶ 8. He nce, it prope rly reda cted minimal information from the r elea sed docume nts under F OI A exemption 7(F). A se parate final orde r ac companies this Memora ndum Opinion.

s/ J OHN D. B ATES Dated: July

15, 2010 United States District J udg e

3