The court has rev iewed the plaintiff’s m otion and finds it deficien t in nearly all re spects. 1 The plaintiff not o nly fails to sub m it a s tatem ent o f m aterial facts as to whic h h e conten ds th ere is no g enuine issue , see LCvR 7( h) , b ut al s o p r e s e nt s no subs t a nt i ve ar g um en t a s to w hy

h e sh ou ld

p re v ai l i n th is F O I A a ct io n. M or eo v er , th e m ot io n is dev oted in larg e part to the p laintiff’s co m m ents o n o r ob

j ections to pro cedura l m otions, such as m otions for ex tension s of tim e, on whic h the court has ruled in the defe ndan ts’ f a vo r . T h e p l a i n t i f

f ’ s o b j e c t i o n s ar e moo t , an d

i nn o wa y a r e d i s p o s i t i ve o f h i s FO IA claim s. I nsofar as the plain tiff challen g es the v alidity of the fed eral statutes un der which he w as co nv icted and sentenc ed, the co nv iction itse lf, an d the jurisdiction o f the sentenc ingcourt, th ese arg um ents are no t relev ant in this FO I A action.
1 UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA

: AL BERTO CON CEPC I ON, : : Plaintiff, :

: Civil Action No. 07-1766 ( RMU) v . : : Docke t Nos.: 19, 25 FED ERALBU REAU OF I NVESTI GATI ON, e t al

. ,: : De fe nd ants . : :
M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION This matter is befor e the c ourt on the par ties’ cr oss-motions for summary judgme nt. For

1 the re a so ns dis c us se d h e re in, the de fe nd ants ’ m oti on wi ll b e g ra

nte d in pa rt a nd de nie d in pa rt .
I. BACKG ROUND The plaintiff br ings this civil action under the Fr eedom of

Information Ac t (“F OIA”) , 5 U. S.C. § 5 52 , a g a ins t th e Un ite d St ate s D e pa rtme nt o f Jus tic e (“ DO J”) and tw o o f i ts components, the F eder al B urea u of I nvestig ation (“F BI ”) a

nd the Executive Off

ice f or UnitedC ri m in al c as e fi le N o. 9 9- 61 44
- 01 “ w as th e fi le num be r as si g ne d [t o] [ p] la in ti ff ’s 2 crim inal ca se while it was before a m ag istrate judg e,” and once it “reach ed th e [d]istrict [c]ourt lev el, c rim inal ca se file No. 99
- 6144
- 01 becam e su bsum ed w ithin crim inal ca se file N o. 99- 753. ” Mem . o f P. & A . in Su pp. of Defs. ’ Mot. for S um m . J., Rev ised Stearns I ID ecl. ¶

3. 2 States Attorney s (“EO USA”). It appea rs that the plaintiff ha s submitt ed multiple reque sts for essentially

the same infor

mation. A. F

OI A Re que sts to t he FBI 1. Request No. 1030134 In September 2005, the plaintiff submitted to the Fede ral B urea u of Investig ation’s Newa rk, Ne w J erse y

field off ice ( “NKF O”) a re quest for:
c e rt if ie d c op y s [si c ] of

any , a nd a ll d oc ume nts pe rt a ini ngto AL B ERT O C ON CEP CI ON , E T AL ., wh ic h s ome are a s f oll ow s: statements, cr iminal complaints, arre st warr ants, L ab Report( s), and e tc ., inc lud ingany

oth e r u nme nti on e d d oc ume nts . Compl. ¶ 11 & Ex. F-6 (Sept. 13, 2005 F OIA Req.) ( capitalization in origina l). NKF O staff forwa rded the reque st to the FB IHea dquarte rs in Washington, DC (“ FB I HQ”) , and F BI HQ staff assig ned it a tra ckingnumber, Reque st No. 1030134-000. Id. ¶ 12 & Ex . F- 9 (Oc t. 3, 2005 letter from D.M. Ha

rdy , Section Chief, Recor d/I nformation Dissemination Section, Recor ds Manag ement Division, FB I ). In Dec ember

2005, the plaintiff submitted a sepa rate reque st to the FB I HQ, re fer encing Re qu e st N o. 10 30 13 4- 00 0, fo r “ a c e rt if ie d c op y of the ‘LAB REP OR T’ ” a sso c iate d w ith Criminal Case Nos. 99-6144-01- 01 and 99-753 ( AJ L ). Compl. ¶ 13 & Ex. F-10 (D ec. 20, 2005 2 FO I A R eq . ). Inad d i t i o n , th e p l ai n t i ff s u b m i t t eda s ec o n d

FO I A r equ es tt o th e N KF O s ee k i n g: A F UL LDI SCL OSU RE, AN D REL EA SE O F AL LRECORDS, and/or data containe d in the files of this Depa rtment, and/or Ag ency3 . . . und e r [the pla int if

f’ s] na me , a nd /or ide nti fi e r t o [his ] n ame . Th is reque st soughted [sic] herein is for COMPLAI NTS OF MI SCO ND UC T, SAN CTI ONS, DI SCI PL I NA RY AC TI ON S, DI SCHARGE FROM EMPL OYMENT F ROM EI THER THE STA TE S, A

ND/ORFED ERA L

GO VE RN ME

NTAS E MPL OY EE S, I NTERNAL

AF FA I RS R ECORDS, and etc., pursua nt to tit le 5 U.S.C
. § 5 5 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ) , an d ( B ) , r e c o r d s w h ic har e s e c ur e d , and ma int a ine d b y

thi s D e pa

rtme nt, and

/or Ag ency . . . and

any , a nd a ll, rec ords, and data conc erningthe Complaints filed byVictim’s coworke rs, associates, [etc.] Def s.’ Mot. for a

n Ex tension of Time to Respond to the Compl. [ #15], Decl. of David M. Hardy (“H ardy IDec l.”) ¶ 11 ( capital letter s in origina l). The plaintiff’ s nextreque st to the FB I HQ soug ht a “L ab Report, Sea rch Warr ant(s), & the wire ta p Authorized Application for F eder al Criminal Case # [99] -6144-01- 01, & 99- 753(AJL ).” Compl., Ex . F- 25 (June 13, 2006 FOIA Req.). Thr oug h his sist er V ilma Cruz, t o whom the plaintiff g rante d power

of attorne y , the plaintiff re quested of the FB I HQ the f ollowing information: Serial numbers, & dat es [ONL Y] on all the audio tapes for Fe dera l Criminal Case #99-6614-01- 06, & 99- 753 (AJL); & a “Certifie d C o p y o f th e La b R e p o rt ” f

o rth e a b o v e F e d e r a l C r i m i n a l C a s e . If the re is n o L a

b Re po rt fo r t he abo ve cri min a l c a se , Pl e a se put it in writing , & f

orwa rd a c opy of that re sponse to both [ the plaintiff and M s . Cr u z]. Har dy IDec l. ¶ 15; Compl., Ex . F- 44 (Oc t. 13, 2006 FOIA Req.). A sea rch of NKF O elec tronic re cords y ielded “two inve stigative files, 245D-N K-97240[,]
and ano the r f ile that w e re re sp on siv e to p la int if f’ s [Se pte mbe r 1 3, 20 05 ] re qu e st. ” Ha rd y IDe c l. ¶ 37. B y letter dated August 11, 2006, FB I HQ staff notified the plaintiff that the r ecor ds responsive to Reque st No. 1030134-000 wer e “in a n investigative file which [was] exempt fromExem ption 7(A) protects “records or inform ation com piled for lawenfo rcem ent 3 purpo ses, but o nly to the ex tent that the produ ction of su ch law enfo rcem ent rec ords or inform ation
. . . could reasona bly be expec ted to interfere with enforcem ent pr oc ee di ng s. ” 5 U
. S
. C
. § 5 52 (b )( 7) (A ). 4 disclosure pursua

nt to [ FOIA Exempti on 7(A)].” Id . ¶ 13 ; se e id . ¶ 37. The pla intiff 3
succe ssfully

appea led this decision to the J ustice De partment’s O ffice of Information and Priva cy (“O I P”), which r emande d the matter to the F BI HQ for further proce ssing. Id. ¶

¶ 1 7 , 3 8
. T h e O IP deter mined that Ex emption 7(A) wa s no longe r applica ble, and notified the plaintiff by letter dated June 20, 2007 that the FB I HQ would be se nding r esponsive re cords unde r a ne w trac king number, Reque st No. 1062945. Id. ¶ 17. 2. Request No. 1062945 “While FB I HQ wa s handling the orig inal [FOIA] requests to NKF O and F BI HQ,
numerous re quests from plaintiff we re c ontinually beingrec eived by

NKF O and F BI HQ.” H ardy I D e c l
. ¶ 4 0
. InO c t o b e r

an d N o v e mb e r

2 0 0 6 , th e p l a i n t i f

f s u b m i t t e d th r e e n e ar l y

i d e n t i c a l F O IA reque sts to the NKFO f

or the followinginformation: The ser ial numbers, & dates [ONLY] on all the au d i o t ap es for Federa l C ri mi nal Ca se # 99 -66 14 -01 -06 , & 99 -75 3 (A J L ); & a “CERTI FI ED C OPY OF T HE LAB REPORT” for the a bove F eder al Criminal Case. I f t here is no L ab R eport for the above criminal ca se, please put it in writing , & forwa rd a c opy of that re sponse to [bot h the p la inti f f an d M s . Cr u z]. Com pl. , E x. F -5 2 ( Oc t. 2 0, 20 06 F OIA R e q. ); see id. , Ex . F- 62 (Nov. 8, 2006 F OIA Req.), F -67 (Nov. 14, 2006 F OIA Req.); Ha rdy IDec l. ¶ 18. In addition, the plaintiff submitted three more reque sts for the same information to the FB I HQ. Compl., Ex . F- 48 (Oc t. 13, 2006 FOIA Req.), F- 58 (Oc t. 24, 2006 FOIA Req.), a nd F- 78 (Mar . 14, 2007 FOIA Req.); Ha rdy IDec l. ¶ 19. FB I HQ staff

did not open files for the new r equests “ina smuch as it was de termined that they5

wer e duplicate reque sts.” Har dy IDec l. ¶ 40. Initially , beca

use NKF O investig ative file 245D -NK- 97240 “wa s a multi-subject file, with multi ple sub-files, only the documents in the plaintiff’ s sub-file we re r eviewe d for proce ssing,” and the r emainingdocuments and sub- files “we re e x cluded a s out of the scope of the [S eptember

13, 2005 FOIA] request.” Id. ¶ 38. Afte r this lawsuit beg an, F BI HQ staff revie wed the e ntire NKF O investig ative file f or proc essing
. Id. ¶ 3 9. In a dd iti on to t he re c or ds it rele ased on June 14, 2007, the FB Irele ased more rec ords to the plaintiff on F ebrua ry 25, 2008, Marc h 24, 2008 and Mar ch 27, 2008. Notice of F iling [#23] , Second De cl. of Da vid M. Hardy (“H ardy I IDec l.”) ¶¶

8-11. 3. Re fer r als The F BI ref err ed 20 pag es of r ecor ds to the DOJ, 608 page s of re cords to the Dr ug Enforc ement Administration (“D EA”) , and 3 pag es of r ecor ds to the Bur eau of Customs and Bor der Protec tion (“CBP”) for e ach c omponent’s direc t response to plaintiff. H ardy I IDec l. ¶ 5. B e c a us e the do c ume nts re fe rr e d to the DO J ori g inate d f ro m th e EO USA , D OJ sta ff re fe rr e d th os e 20 pag es of r ecor ds to the EOUSA for pr ocessing
. Id.
a. DO J/E OU SA On May 9, 20 08 , th e F B Ire c e ive d a re fe rr a l f ro m th e EO USAof

21 4 p a g e s o f m ate ri a l, most pag es of whic h wer e duplicate s of mater ial the FB Ialre ady had proc essed. Id. ¶ 7. Th e FBI responde d direc tly

to plaintiff and advise d him of its decision to release only one of the se 214 pag es. Id .; Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of De fs.’ Mot. for Summ. J . (“D efs.’ Mot. for Summ. J .”) [#25] , Third Dec l. of David M. Ha rdy (“H ardy I I IDec l.”) ¶ 7 & Ex . C (May 19, 2008 letter fr om D.M. Har dy

).6 b. D EA The mate rials re fer

red to the D EA we re “ multipl e copie s of the DEAFor m 7 (April 1982) Report of Dr

ugProperty

Collected, Purcha sed or Seized.” Notice of F iling [#24] , Dec l. of Wil liam C. L ittle, J r. (“ L ittle Decl.”) ¶ 12. The D EA re turned these materia ls, which wer e lab repor ts, to the FB Ion Fe bruar

y 25, 2008. Har dy

I I IDec l. ¶ 6 & Ex . B ( May 13, 2008 letter fr om K.L . My rick, Chief, O perations Unit, FOIA/Records Ma nag ement Section). O f the 608 pa g es ref err ed, “only

74 pag es conta ined the plaintiff[’]s name or other ide ntifying inf ormation.” Id. ¶ 6. The DEArec ommended that “the names of D EA laboratory personne l . . . be withheld.” L ittle Decl. ¶ 15. B eca

use the DEA“could not dete rmine whe ther the r emaining534 pag es we re responsive to the pla intiff, [i t asked] that the FB I make the de termination.” Ha rdy I I IDec l. ¶ 6. F ro m th e la

b r e po rt s, the F B I , in

tur n, re da c te d “ on ly

the name s o f t

he F B ISpe c ia l A g e nts contained the rein” under F OIA Exempti ons 6 and 7(C), id. ¶ 8, and r elea sed the 74 re dacte d pag es to plaintiff on June 16, 2008. Defs.’ Reply Br ief in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J . (“D efs.’ Reply ”), F ourth Dec l. of David M. Ha rdy (“H ardy I V Dec l.”) ¶ 12 & Ex . A (June 18, 2008 letter from D.M. Ha

rdy ).
c . C BP The thre e pag es of r ecor ds ref err ed by the FB I HQ to the CBP we re de scribed a s “two pag es of [Trea sury

Enforc ement Communications Sy stem (“TECS”)] documents (D ocument Numbers 001 a

nd 002)” a

nd “an a dditional, related pa g e fr om TECS (Document Number 003).” Notice of Filing[#24] , Dec l. of Mark H anson (“ Hanson De cl.”) ¶ 4 & Ex . A ( Vaughn Index). The CB P relea sed these r ecor ds in part af ter re dactinginformation under Ex emptions 2, 6 and 7(C). See id. ¶¶ 9, 11, 14 & , Ex . A.I t doe s no t app ear that the EO US A’s respon ses to the plaintiff’s re quests for info rm ation 4 pertainingto Assistant U nited States Attorn ey s, see Stearns ID ecl. ¶ ¶ 5- 7, 12, 16 (R eq. Nos . 0 5- 2149 , 0 5- 2150 , and 06- 3779 ), are ch alleng ed in this action. 7 B. F OI A Re que sts to t he EO USA 4 1. Request No. 06- 1738 On Marc h 8, 2006, the plaintiff submitted a F OIA re quest to the EOUSA see king the following information:

L AB REPORT, I

NDI CTMENT, THE RUL E 11, APPL I CA T I O NOF WHI CH WAS SI GNED B Y [P L AI NTI FF ] & THE RECORDED F.B .I . TAPE S SERI ES NUMBERS WI TH THE D ATES OF RECORDI

NGS, & I F POSSI BL E PL EASE PROVED [si c] [ THE PLAI NT I F F ] WI TH TH E L OC AT I ON S OF SAI D RECO RD I NG S. Com pl. , E x. F -2 2 ( Mar. 8, 20 06 F OIA R e q. ) ( c a pit a lizatio n in

or ig ina l) ; seeDef

s.’ Mot. for a

n Exte ns ion of Ti me to R e sp on d to the Com pl. [#15 ], D e c l. o f D ion e Jac ks on Ste arn s ( “ Ste arn s I Dec l.”) ¶ 20. A lthough the E OUSA re ceive d three subsequent re quests from the plaintiff, see C o mp l
. , E x . F- 2 5 (J un e 1 3 , 2 0 0 6 FO I A R eq . ), F- 3 0 (J u l y 3 1 , 2 0 0 6 FO I A R eq . ), an d F- 4 0 (A u g. 29 , 2 00 6 F OIA R e q. ), sta ff se arc he d o nly

fo r r e c or ds re sp on siv e to t he Ma rc h 8 , 2 00 6 r e qu e st; the subsequent r equests “w ould have e nlarg ed the sc ope of the initial March 8, 2006 re quest.” Ste arn s I De c l. ¶ 24 . F ro m “ c ri min a l c a se fi le 99 -7 53 in t he Di str ic t of

Ne w Je rs e y ,” EO USA staff loc ated a

nd rele ased in full the plaintiff’ s indictment and Rule 11 application. Id. ¶ 25. There wer e no lab r eports or a udio tapes in the file. Id. The plaintiff did not file a n administrative appe al. Id. ¶ 26. 2. Request No. 07- 49 On J anuar

y 23, 2006, the plaintiff submitted another F OIA re quest to the EOUSA for the fo l l o wi n g:8 L a b r e po rt , c e rt if

ie d a s a tr ue & c or re c t c op y of the or igi na l. T his reque st is for Fe dera l Criminal case #99-6144- 01 & 99- 753 (AJL ). Com pl. , E x. F -1 3 ( Jan. 23 , 2 00 6 F OIA R e q. ); Ste arn s I De c l. ¶ 27 . In s ub se qu e nt F OIA r e qu e sts , the plaintiff soug ht, in addition to t he lab r eport, seeC o mp l
. , E x . F
- 4 4 ( O c t . 1 3 , 2 0 0 6 F O IA Req.) and F -75 (De c. 28, 2005 F OIA Req.), the “ Serial numbers, & dates [ONLY] on all of the audio tapes f

or F eder al Criminal Case #99-6144-01- 06, & 99- 753 (AJL ).” Id. , Ex . F- 57 (Oc t. 24, 20 06 F OIA R e q. ) at 1; seeStearns I Dec l. ¶ 28. Be cause the subsequent r equests expanded the scope of the initial request, EOU SA staff sea rche d only

for the materials desc ribed in the January 23, 2006 reque st, that is, the lab report. Stear ns IDec l. ¶ 30. No re sponsive rec ords wer e located, a nd the OI P affirme d this decision on administrative appea l. Id . ¶¶ 31- 32.

II. DI SCU SSIO N A. Su mm ar

y Jud gment Sta nda rd Th e c ourt g ra nts a mot ion fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt whe n th e ple a din g s, de po sit ion s,
answe rs to interrog atories, a nd admissions on file, toge ther with af fidavits or dec larations, show that there is no ge nuine issue of mate rial fa ct and that the movingparty is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. F ED . R. C IV . P. 56(c) . The movingparty bear s the burden of

demonstratingan absenc e of a

g enuine issue of

materia l fac t. Ce lote

xCor p. v . Ca tre tt , 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). Fa ctual asse rtions in the moving par ty ’s af fidavits may

be ac cepte d as true unle ss the opposing party submits hi s own aff

idavits or decla

rations or doc umentary

evidenc e to the contr ary . Neal v. Ke lly , 963 F.2d 453, 456 ( D.C. Cir. 1992). In a F OIA c a se , th e c ourt

g ra nts summa

ry jud g me nt b a se d o n th e inf or matio n p ro vid e d in9

aff idavits or decla

rations when the y

descr ibe “the doc uments and the justifications for
no nd isc los ur e wi th r e a so na bly sp e c if ic de ta il, de mon str ate that th e inf or matio n w ithhe ld l og ic a lly 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.” Military Audit Project v. Casey , 656 F.2d 724, 738 (D .C. Cir . 1 98 1) ; see also He rtzberg v. Vene man , 273 F. Supp. 2d 67, 74 (D.D .C. 2003). Such aff idavits or decla

rations ar e ac corde d “a pr esumption of g ood faith, which c annot be r ebutted by ‘pure ly speculative claims about the e x istence a nd discovera

bility of other doc uments.’” SafeCard Servs., Inc . v. Sec . &Exc h. Comm’n , 926 F.2d 1197, 1200 ( D.C. Cir. 1991) (quoting Ground Sauce r W

atch, Inc . v. CIA , 692 F.2d 770, 771 ( D.C. Cir. 1981)). The de fenda

nts have withheld re cords in full or in par t under F OIA Exempti ons 2, 3, 5, 6, 7(C), 7(D) , and 7(E) , seeHar dy I IDec l. ¶ 12 & Ex . F; Rev. Stear ns I IDec l. & Ex. A; Rev. Ste arn s I IDe c l., Ex. D ; H ans on De c l., Ex. A ; L itt le De c l. ¶ 15 , ye t th e pla int if

f’ s o pp os iti on

to the de fe nd ants ’ s umm ary jud g me nt m oti on

ra ise s n o o bje c tio n to the de c isi on s to wi thh old information under

any of the c laimed exemptions. The court is mindful that the plaintiff is a pr o
selitigant whose pleading s and other submissions are construed liber ally
. See, e .g., Haines v. Kerner , 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). F or this rea son, the court r elies on the plaintiff’ s one
asser tion, that none of the re quested re cords a re e x empt from disclosure under a ny provisions of the FO I A, seePl. ’s Op p’ n at 3, a s a sign th at th e pla int if

f d oe s n ot c on c e de the de fe nd ants ’ motion, notwit hstanding his utter failure to addre ss substantively any of the c laimed exemptions. The c ourt will address e ach of the claimed e x emptions below. B. Defendant

s’ Searches for Responsive Rec ords “An a g ency

fulfills its obl igations under FO IA if it can de monstrate beyond materia l10

doubt that its search w as ‘r easona bly calc ulated to uncove r all re levant docume nts.’” ValenciaLuc e na v . U

.S . Co as t G ua rd , 1 8 0 F. 3 d

3 2 1 , 3 2 5 (D
. C
. C i r. 1 9 9 9 ) ( qu o t i n g Truit t v. Dep’ t of Sta te , 8 97 F .2 d 5 40 , 5 42 (D .C. Cir . 1 99 0) ); Campbell v. U.S. De p’t of Justice , 164 F.3d 20, 27 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (notingthat FOIA re quires an a g ency to conduct a se arc h using me thods
rea sonably

expected to produc e the r equeste d information). The ag ency bear s the burden of showing that its searc h was c alculate d to uncover all rele vant documents. Steinberg v. U .S. Dep’ t of Justice , 2 3 F .3 d 5 48 , 5 51 (D .C. Cir . 1 99 4) . T o me e t it s b ur de n, the a g e nc y may su bmi t aff idavits or decla

rations that explain in reasonable detail the scope and method of the ag ency ’s
sear ch. Perry v . Block, 684 F.2d 121, 126 ( D.C. Cir. 1982). In the abse nce of contra ry evidenc e, such af fidavits or dec larations are suff icient to demonstrate a

n ag ency ’s compliance with the FOIA. Id . at 127. I f the re cord “ leave s substantial doubt as to the sufficienc y of the sea

rch, summary judgme nt for the a g ency

is not proper.” Tru itt , 897 F.2d at 542.

1. F BI Withthe Ce ntr a l Re c or ds Sy ste m ( “ CRS” ), the F B Ima int a ins “ a dmi nis tr ativ e , a pp lic ant,
c ri min a l, p e rs onne l, a

nd oth e r f ile s” a c qu ir e d a

nd c omp ile d in

the c ours e of

c on du c tin g“ its mandated la

w enf orce ment responsibilities.” Har dy IDec l. ¶ 26. The “ CRS is org anized into a
nume ri c a l se qu e nc e of

fi le s, c a lle d F B I‘c la ssi fi c atio ns ,’ wh ic h a re br ok e n d own a c c or din gto
s u b j ec tm at t er , ” w h i ch m ay

co rr es p o n d

t o an i n d i v i d

u al , o rga n i z at i o n , ac t i v i ty , o r f o re i gn intelligenc e matter . Id. Certain re cords in the CRS are ma intained at the F BI ’s Washington, D.C. headqua

rters; other s are maintained at the pe rtinent field off ice. Id. In order

to searc h the CRS , the FB Iuses the Automated Ca se Support Sy stem (“ACS”). Id. The ACS is “descr ibed as a n internal c omputerized subsy stem of the CRS.” Id. ¶ 27.11

One c annot quer

y the CRS for data, such a s an individual’s name or social sec urity

number, a

nd to a llo w f or su c h a qu e ry , “ the re qu ir e d in fo rm atio n is du pli c ate d a nd mov e s to the AC S so that it can be sear ched.” Id. Data is r e tr ie ve d f

ro m th e CRS thro ug h th e AC S us inga lph a be tic a lly
arr ang ed Ge nera l Indices. Id. ¶ 28. Ther e ar e two categ ories of G ener al Indices: “ma in” entrie s and “r efe renc e” e ntries. Id. Th e fo rm e r “ c arr [y ] the name c or re sp on din gwi th a

su bje c t of a fi le contained in the CRS,” and the latter (a lso known as cr oss-ref ere nces) “g ener ally

are only a mer e mention or ref

ere nce to a

n individual . . . or other subjec t matter[] contained in a document located in a

nother ‘ma in’ file on a dif fer ent subject matter .” Id. There are “thre e integ rate d, y et sepa rate ly functional, a

utomated applications that support
case manag ement func tions for all FB Iinvestigative and administrative c ases.” Id. ¶ 30. They
are Investig ative Case Ma nag ement (“ I CM”), Elec tronic Case F ile (“ECF ”), a nd Universa l I ndex (“U NI ”). Id. The I CM allows for the ope ning, a ssignment, a nd closing of investig ative and administrative ca ses, and f or the a ssignment a

nd trac king of

leads. Id. ¶ 3 0( a ). Whe n a c a se is opened, it is assig ned a Universal Case File Numbe r which is used by the FB Iheadqua

rters a nd
a ll f ie ld o ff ic e s c on du c tin gor

a ssi sti ngin a

n inve sti g atio n. Th e fi rs t thre e dig its c or re sp on d to the c la ssi fi c atio n f

or the ty pe of inv e sti g atio n; t

he tw o- le tte r a

bb re viatio n in dic ate s th e fi e ld office of orig in, and the last dig its denote the individual case file number f or a pa rticular investigation. Id. File number 245-NK- 97240 indicates that this was a n Org anized Crime Drug Enforc ement investig ation orig inating in the N ewa rk field of

fice
. Id. The ECF is the “ce ntral ele ctronic r epository for the F BI ’s offic ial text -base d documents,” Id. ¶ 30(b) , and UNI

provides “a

complete subjec t/case inde x to all investigative and administrative ca ses.” Id. ¶ 30(c ). The inve stigative Special Ag ent assig ned to work on theThe other inv estig ativ e file “relates to an ong oinginv estig ation” unrelated to the 5 crim inal ca se to whic h the plain tiff refers in his FO I A requests . Hard y I ID ecl. ¶ 4; (continued...) 12 investigation, the Supervisory Ag ent in the field off

ice c onductingthe investig ation, and the Sup e rv iso ry

Ag e nt at F B Ihe a dq

ua rt e rs de te rm ine wh e the r t o in de x name s o the r t ha n s ub je c ts, suspects, and vic tims. Id. ¶ 31. Only information dee med “pe rtinent, rele vant, or e ssential for future r etrieva l” is index ed. Id. Otherw ise, FB Ifiles “would . . . be mere ly arc hival in nature.” Id. Thus, the Gene ral Indices to the CRS files “are the means by which the F BI

can de termine what re trievable information, if any , the FB Imay have in its CRS files on a pa rticular subje ct matter or individual.” Id. Electronic surveillance indices (“ EL SUR”), which a re a separ ate sy stem of re cords f rom the CRS, “are use d to maintain information on a subjec t whose ele ctronic a nd/or voice communications have been inter cepte d as a r esult of a c onsensual ele ctronic sur veillance or a court-or dere d . . . elec tronic surve illance c onducted by the FB I .” Id. ¶ 32. These indices include ind ivi du a ls who we re targ e ts o f d ir e c t su rv e ill anc e , p art ic ipa

nts in m on ito re d c onve rs atio ns , owner s or lease rs of the pr emises wher e the F BI conducte d the elec tronic surve illance. Id. ¶ 33. Field of fice s include in their EL SUR indi ces the names of a ll persons whose voice s have be en monitored, id. ¶ 35, as we ll as the names of persons mentioned dur ing monitore d conver sations. Id. ¶ 36. On e se arc he s th e CRS f

or re c or ds c on c e rn inga

pa rt ic ula r s ub je c t by the su bje c t’ s n ame in the Gene ral Indices. Id. ¶ ¶ 2 9 , 3 1
. Inr e s p o n s e t o th e p l a i n t i f f ’ s S e p t e mb e r

1 3 , 2 0 0 5 F O IA reque st to the NKFO , the FB Iconducte d “a se arc h of the NK FO indice s of the CRS,” which located two inve stigative files bea ringnumber 245-N K-97249 a nd one other

investigative file. 5(...continued) 5 H ar dy

ID ec l. ¶ 3 9. Th e F B Ia ss erts b oth th at th is f il e is n ot r es po ns iv e to th e pl ai nt if f’ s F O IA r e qu e s tan d

th a ti ti s e x e mp tf

r o m di s c l o s u r e un d e r

Ex e mp t i o n7 ( A )
. Ha r dy II Decl. ¶ 4; Hard y ID ecl. ¶ 39
. 13 Id. ¶ 37; Har dy

I IDec l. ¶ 4. When it was deter mined that there no longe r wa s an ac tive inv e sti g atio n p e rt a ini ngto t he pla int if

f, on re mand fr om O I P, F B I HQ sta ff

re pr oc e sse d th e fi le fo c us ingon ly

on the su b- fi le pe rt a ini ngto p la int if f. Ha rd y IDe c l. ¶ 38 . “ [T]hi s w a s a

mul tisubject file, with multiple sub-files, [and] onl y the documents in the plaintiff’ s sub-file we re revie wed f

or proc essing ;” the re maining doc uments and sub-files “ wer e excluded as out of the scope of the [S eptember

13, 2005 FOIA] request.” Id. Af te r t he fi lin gof

the ins tant c omp la int , FB I HQ staff

ag ain re viewed “ the entire NKF O 245 file . . . for proce ssing.” Id. ¶ 39 . T he FBI rele ased a dditional documents to the plaintiff on Fe bruar y 25, 2008, Marc h 24, 2008 and Mar ch 27, 2008. Notice of

Filing[#23] , Har dy

I IDec l. ¶¶ 8-11. Reg ardingthe 608 pag es of r ecor ds ref err ed to and r eturne d by

the DEA, 74 r edac ted pag es we re r elea sed to the plaintiff, a nd the re maining 534 pa g es of r ecor ds were deeme d not responsive to the pla intiff’s re quest. Har dy I I IDec l. ¶ 9. “Ne verthe less, to ensure that [ the] pla int if f r e c e ive [d] a ll F B Ire c or ds that [we re ] ev e n p ote nti a lly re sp on siv e to h is [F OIA] r e qu e sts (and [wer e] not subject to withholdi ng s), the F BI [release d] t he re maining 534 pa g es of lab repor ts.” Har dy

I V Dec l. ¶ 15. Fr om the lab re ports the FB Ihas re dacte d “only the names a

nd other identify

ing inf ormation of the DE A lab per sonnel and the F BI Special Ag ents ref

ere nced there in” under

Ex emptions 6 and 7(C). Id. S e ar c h e s o f

th e E LS U R

i n d i c e s yi e l d e d

n o d o c u m e n t s r e s p o n s i v e t o p l a i n t i f f ’ s F O IA reque st. Hardy

IDec l. ¶ 41.14 2. EOU SA Th e L e g a l Inf

or matio n O ff

ic e Ne tw or

k Sy ste m ( “ L I ON S” ) “ is a c omp ute r d ata

ba se maintained by

the [DOJ ] t hat trac ks all civil, criminal and appe llate investig ations and ca ses.” Def s.’ Mot. for Summ. J ., Revised Ver sion of Apr. 30, 2008 De cl. of Dione J ackson Stea rns (“Rev. Stea

rns I IDec l.”) ¶ 3. It is “the only source of information within t he EOU SA’s po sse ssi on , c us tod

y or c on tr ol t hat c on ta ins re c or ds c on c e rn ingc ri min a l c a se s b ro ug ht a g a ins t specific individuals.” Id. One se arc hes L I ONS using, a mong othe r sea

rch te rms, a par

ty ’s name. Id. Us ingthe pla int if

f’ s n ame a s a

se arc h te rm , th e de c lara

tio n e xpla ins that tw o c ri min a l c a se files wer e located: Nos. 99-6144-01 a nd 99-753. Id. “ Al l r e c or ds that a pp e ar i n c ri min a l c a se file No. 99-6144- 01 also appe ar in c riminal case file No. 99-753.” Id. Th e F OIA r e qu e sts su

bmi tte d to the EO USAa ft e r t he ini tia l Ma

rc h 8 , 2 00 6 r e qu e st appea red to be duplicative of the initial request; howeve r, some of the later r equests mentioned specific documents re lated to the plaintiff’ s criminal ca se that we re not mentioned in the initial reque st. Id. ¶ 4. “[I ]n an effor t to streamline this lit iga

tion, the EOUSA . . . conduc t[ ed] a new
se arc h o f [the ] cr imi na l c a se fi le fo r a ll d oc ume nts re latin gto [p la int if f] a nd the c ri min a l c a se broug ht ag ainst him (reg ardle ss of whethe r the doc uments were specific ally ref ere nced in a

ny of his pr ior F OIA/ PA r e qu e sts ), ” and dis c los e d “ any

pr e vio us ly

un dis c los e d a

nd re le a sa ble documents that it locate[d].” Id. Ultimately , the EOUSA located 3,862 pag es of r esponsive
re c or ds , r e le a se d in

fu ll 2 ,4 18 pa g e s o f r e c or ds , r e le a se d in pa rt 8 p a g e s o f r e c or ds , a

nd wi thh e ld in full 134 pag es of r ecor ds. Id. ¶ 5 & n.2. Amongthese re cords we re 214 pa g es of mate rial which orig inated fr om the FB I , and the EO USA ref err ed this material to the F BI for its revie w and dire ct re sponse to plaintiff. Id. ; seeHar dy I I IDec l. ¶ 7. The r emaining225 pag es of r ecor dsThe crim inal ca se file also in cluded a copy of the p laintiff’s pre sentenc e inv estig ation 6 re po rt , w hi chw as n ot r el ea se d by

th e E O U S A
. R ev . S te ar ns I ID ec l. ¶

5
. P ur su an t t o BO P P rog ram

State m ent 1 351. 05, the plaintiff m ay rev iew the rep ort at the in stitution whe re he is in carcerated
. See id. The abbre v iation “ Pl.’s Opp ’n” refe rs to the P laintiff’s S econd O ppos ition 7 Motion/A ffidav it/Declaratio n/Mem orand um of Law/Brief of F acts o f G enuine I ssues of Lawin Resp onse to C ouns els of Reco rd Mislead ing /Perjured I nter A lia Motionfor S um m ar y Jud g m en t [ #2 9]
. 15 either “ wer e duplicate s [or] wer e entire ly non-re sponsive.” Rev. Stearns I IDec l. ¶ 5. They 6 “re late solely

to a third party ,” and ne ither per tain to the plaintiff nor “ relate[] to any of the cate g ories of doc uments that Plainti ff spe cifica lly identified in his [ FOIA] requests.” Notice of Clarification [ #31], Fifth Decl. of Dione Jackson Stearns (“ Stearns V De cl.”) ¶ 5. In his oppositi on, the plaintiff conte nds that the rec ords he ha s rec eived a re not re sponsive to h is F OIA r e qu e sts , e ith e r b e c a us e the y we re no t th e re c or ds he re qu e ste d o r w e re no t r e late d to the plaintiff or his cr iminal case. Pl.’s Opp’n ¶ ¶ 6, 16. He a

rgues that the de fenda

nts “are 7 continuing to withhold re levant re quested, & soug hted [sic] rec ords, documents, files, data, & etc. [sic], & are continuing to c ommit acts of falsification of public rec ords.” Id. ¶ 1 7; se e id . ¶ 64 . F ur the r, he a pp e ars to a

rgue that th e de fe nd ants ’ f a ilure to p ro du c e c op ie s o f t he la b r e po rt s he re quested re nders his cr iminal conviction invalid. See id. ¶ 64. I f an a g ency

does not locate rec ords re sponsive to a FO I A re quest, it stil l may preva il on
summa ry jud g me nt i f i t e sta

bli sh e s “ that it

loc ate d n o r e c or ds re sp on siv e to p la int if f’ s r e qu e st afte r a r easona

ble sea rch using‘methods re asonably expected to produc e the infor mation reque sted.’” Davidson v. Env tl. Prot. Agency , 121 F. Supp. 2d 38, 39 (D.D .C. 2000) (quoting Oglesby v . U.S. Dep’ t of Army , 9 20 F .2 d 5 7, 68 (D .C. Cir . 1 99 0) ); se e Ste inb e rg , 23 F.3d at 551 (n oti ngthat th e a g e nc y ’s se arc h f or re sp on siv e re c or ds de pe nd s n ot o n “ wh e the r t he re might e xist16

any oth e r d oc ume nts po ssi bly re sp on siv e to t

he re qu e st, but r athe r whe the r t he se arc h f

or tho se do cum ent s w as ad equ ate ”). O n t hi s re cord , t he co urtcon clu des th at t he m eth od s b y whi ch FBI and EOU SA staff sea

rche d for r esponsive re cords we re r easona ble under the circ umstances. The plaintiff’s spec ulation as to the exist ence of additional re cords, a bsent support for his alleg ations of ag ency bad fa ith, does not render the sea rche s inadequate. See, e .g. , Judicial W atch, Inc . v. U. S. De p’ t of He alt h a nd Hu ma n S e rv s. , 27 F. Supp. 2d 240, 244 (D.D .C. 1998) (conc luding that

“ pla int if f’ s sp e c ula

tio n a s to the tr

us tw or thi ne ss o f t

he Clinton

a dmi nis tr atio n a

nd [ag e nc y ’s ] fa ilure to r e le a se do c ume nts that pl a int if f a pp are ntl y e xpe c te d to be re le a se d is ins uf fi c ie nt a s a matter of la

w to defe at def

endant’ s motion for summary judgme nt as to the ade quacy of the FOIA sea rch” ). The plaintiff ma

y have r ece ived re cords that he did not request. Af ter having r ece ived a ste a dy str e am of re pe tit ive F OIA r e qu e sts fr om t he pla int if

f a nd in l ig ht o f t

his c ivi l a c tio n, bo th the F B Iand

the EO USApurp os e ly

re le a se d a s ma

ny no n- e xemp t r e c or ds a s p os sib le , e ve n th os e
rec ords pre viously

deeme d non-re sponsive. Specifica lly , the FB Irele ased not only the 74 pag es of lab re ports deeme d responsive by the DEA, but a lso the remaining534 pag es of lab r eports of questionable re levanc e. SeeHa rd y I IDe c l. ¶ ¶ 8 -1 1; H ard

y I I IDe c l. ¶

15 . Si mil arl y , th e EO USA rele ased not only

rec ords dee med re sponsive to his original F OIA re quest, but also any other information that did not fall within a rec og nized FOIA exemption. SeeRev. Stearns I IDec l. ¶¶ 4-5. These components, then, voluntarily provided the pla intiff with rec ords that they wer e not require d to disclose under the FOIA. C. E xemptio ns 1. Exe m pt ion 217

Ex emption 2 shields from disclosure infor mation that is “relate d solely to the internal personne l rules and pr actice s of an a g ency .” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(2) . The phra se “pe rsonnel rule s and pra ctices” is interprete d to include not only “minor employ

ment matters” but a lso “other rules and pr actice s g overningag ency personne l.” Crooker v. Bureau of Alc ohol, Tobacco & Firearms , 6 70 F .2 d 1 05 1, 10 56 (D .C. Cir . 1 98 1) (e n b anc ). Th e “ inf or matio n n e e d n ot a c tua lly be ‘rules a

nd prac tices’ to qualify

under [E]x emption 2, as the statute provide s that matter ‘re lated’ to rule s and pra ctices is also e x empt.” Schwaner v. U.S. De p’t of the Air Force , 898 F.2d 793, 795 ( D.C. Cir. 1990). Ex emption 2 applies if the information that is sought meets two cr iteria. F irst, such information must be “used f or pre dominantly

internal purpose s.” Crooker , 6 70 F .2 d at 10 74 ; see Nat’l Tr easury Em

ployee s Union v. U.S. Customs Serv. , 802 F.2d 525, 528 ( D.C. Cir. 1985). Second, the a g ency

must show either that “disclosure may risk circ umvention of ag ency
re g ulatio n, ” or

that “ the mate ri a l r e late s to tr ivi a l a dmi nis tr ativ e matte rs of no g e nu ine pu

bli c interest.” Schwaner , 898 F.2d at 794 (citations omitted). “Predominantly

internal doc uments the disclosure of which would risk cir cumvention of ag ency statutes are protec ted by

the so-ca lled ‘hig h 2’ exemption.” Schiller v. NLRB , 964 F.2d 1205, 1207 (D.C. Cir. 1992). “H igh 2” exempt information is “not li mited . . . to sit uations wher e pena l or enfor ceme nt statutes could be cir cumvented.” Id . at 1208. I f the mate rial at issue
mere ly relates to trivial administrative matters of no g enuine public inter est, it is deemed “low 2” exempt material. See Fo un ding Ch urc h o f Sc ie nto log

yof W as h. , D .C. , I

nc . v . S mi th , 721 F.2d 828, 830-31 n.4 (D.C. Cir. 1983). a. “Low 2” Exem pt Inf orm ationWhere th e F BIrelies on Exem ption 2 in conjunction with Exem ption 7(E), see Ha r dy II 8 D ec l. ¶

¶ 2 2- 23 , 7 0- 71 , th e co urt c on si de rs th e de ci si on s to w ithh ol d su chin fo rm at io n in it s di sc us si on

o f E xe m pt io n 7( E ). 18

F BI 8 The F BI withholds as “low 2” e x empt materia l internal telephone numbers of a Special Ag e nt a nd a su pp or t e mpl oye e . H ard

y I IDe c l. ¶ 20 . Su c h te le ph on e numbe rs are me re ly too ls used by FB Ipersonne l in perfor

ming their

duties, and, ac cording ly , “ar e re lated solely to the FB I ’s interna l prac tices” the disclosure of which “would not ser ve any public interest.” Id. ¶ 21. Mo reov er, r ele ase o f t hes e nu mb ers “wo ul d i mp ede t he FBI ’s e ffect iv enes s b y subj ect in g the FBI employ ees . . . to the possibility of har assment,” id. , an occ urre nce which “c ould disrupt official business (includingimpeding the ir ability to conduct and c onclude law enfor ceme nt investigations in a tim ely manner).” Id. ¶ 20. In addition, the FB Iwithholds source sy mbol numbers and informa nt file numbers unde r Exe mpt ion

2. Ha rd y I IDe c l. ¶ ¶ 2 5- 26 ; see id. , E x . F ( Vaughn Index) at 5, 18, 65, 162, 192-93. Sourc e sy mbo l numbe rs are us e d to c on c e a l a so ur c e ’s ide nti ty

“ by ins e rt ingthi s numb e r i n written docume nts” in lieu of the sourc e’s true name. Id. ¶ 25. The numbe r includes a two or three -letter a

bbreviation of the FB Ifield off ice out of which the sourc e is operating ( such as NK fo r t he Ne wa rk fi e ld o ff ic e ) a nd is a ssi g ne d “ to c on fi de nti a l in fo rm ants wh o r e po rt inf or matio n to the FB Ion a re g ular ba sis pursuant to an ‘e x press’ grant of c onfidentiality .” Id. “ On c e thi s number is assig ned, it will alway s be sy nony mous with the indivi dual” sourc e. Id. Ac c or din gto the F B I , r e le a se of

a so ur c e sy mbo l numbe r s he ds no light o n th e F B I ’s pe rf or manc e of its dutie s, and, ther efor e, re lease serve s no public interest. Id. Simi larly , an informa

nt file number “ is an administrative tool used interna lly within the19

FB Ito fac ilitate the flow and r etrieva l of information supplied to it by a sourc e.” H ardy

I IDec l. ¶ 26. The file itself “ is a repository for ba ckg round data

on the source , and also c ontains information provided by

him/her conc erningother individuals and/or tar g ets of F BI interest on [whom] he/she re ported infor mation.” Id. The infor

mant file number inc ludes a thre e-numbe r
c la ssi fi c atio n a ssi g ne d a c c or din gto t he natur e of

inf or matio n th e so ur c e pr ov ide s, a s w e ll a s a sequentially -assig ned number unique to that informant. Id. On c e a ssi g ne d, the inf or mant f ile number is “sy

nony mous with that informant.” Id. Release of an infor mant file number, the de c laratio n e xpla ins , “ do e s n ot s he d li g ht u po n th e F B I ’s pe rf

or manc e of its statut or

y du e s; there fore , there exis ts no public interest in the rele ase of these number s.” Id. EOU SA The EOU SA withholds as “low 2” exempt material “ internal tele phone number s of two As sis tant Unit e d St ate s A tto rn e y s . . . and on e . . . p ara le g a l.” Re v. Ste arn s I I IDe c l. ¶ 11 ; see Rev. Stearns I IDec l., Ex . A ( Vaughn Index, Doc. Nos. 2-3); Rev. Stear ns I I IDec l., Ex . D ( Vaughn Index, Doc. Nos. 1-2). The decla ration explains that these telephone numbers ar e for internal use, a

nd their re lease to the public “could subjec t the AUSAs and pa rale g al to hara ssing communications and, in so doing , disrupt official business.” Rev. Stearns I I IDec l. ¶ 11. CB P Th e CB P wi thh old s a s “ low 2” e xemp t in fo rm atio n “ a dmi nis tr ativ e mark ing s r e latin gto int e rn a l a g e nc y

fi le c on tr ol s y ste ms, the ide nti ty of pa rt ic ula r t y pe s o f c omp ute r s y ste m r e po rt s, and the ke y

stroke and f

unction codes of

internal a g ency

computerized prope rty

manag ement sy ste ms. ” No tic e of

F ili ng[#24 ], H ans on

De c l. ¶ 8 & Ex. A(D oc . N os . 0 01 -0 03 ). Th e se marking s are used “to a ssist i n the manag ement and c ontrol of its miss ion” and f or ac cessingthe20

ag ency ’s files and c omputer sy stems. Id. Acc ess to these re cords is re stricted fr om the public, and, the de clar ation asser ts, relea se of these marking s is of litt le or no intere st to the public. Id. Fur thermore , “knowledg e of inter nal ag ency

computer sy stem repor

t ty pes and a ssociated computer f

unction codes c ould fac ilitate improper ac cess to sensitive [Cust oms and Bor der Patrol] records a

nd interfe re w ith [ the ag ency ’s] abilit y to maintain rec ords.” Id. “L ow 2” e x empt materia ls include such items as “f ile numbers, initials, signatur e and mail routing stamps, re fer ence s to interag ency transfe rs, and data proc essingref ere nces,” Schere r v. Kelley , 584 F.2d 170, 175- 76 (7th Cir. 1978), cert. de nied sub nom. Sche rer v. W ebster , 440 U
. S. 9 6 4 ( 1 9 7 9 ) , an d

o th e r “ tr iv ia l a dmi n is tr ati v e d ata s u c ha s . . . d ata

p r o c e s s in gn o tati o n s [] and other administrative marking s.” Coleman v. FBI , 13 F. Supp. 2d 75, 78 (D.D .C. 1998) (citation omitted). The de clar ations establish that the telephone numbers, sourc e sy mbol numbers, informa

nt file numbers a

nd administrative marking s withheld are for inter nal ag ency use and a re of no g enuine inter est to the public. The c ourt conc ludes that this information proper ly is withheld under Exemption 2.

“High 2” E xem pt Inf

orm ation As “hig h 2” exempt material, the EO USA withholds “internal, undisclosed, and predecisional investig ative for ms that were prepa

red by an AUSA a

nd that addre ss, inte r a lia , the sp e c if ic mann e r i n whic h th e g ov e rnme nt w a s to c on du c t it s inve sti g atio n o f t he ind ivi du a ls inv o lv e d in th e dr u gc o n s p ir a c y

w it h[th e p la inti f

f ] ( i.e. , the step-by -step investig ative tec hniques that would be utiliz ed by

law enf orce ment personne l in investigatingthe drugconspirac y .” Rev. Ste arn s I I IDe c l. ¶

12 & Ex. D (D oc . N o. 2) . T he de c lara tio n e xpla ins that r e le a se of the se fo rm s, “which disc lose prec isely how the g overnme nt planned to investig ate those thoug ht to be21

involved in the drugconspirac y with [ the plaintiff,] could allow individuals involved in future drugconspirac ies to tailor their beha vior and avoid appre hension.” Id. The de clar ation, then, establishes that re lease of these inve stigation forms may risk circ umvention of the law. The court c oncludes that these forms prope rly are withheld under Exemption 2. 2. Exe m pt ion 3 Ex emption 3 protects re cords that a re “ specific ally

exempted from disclosure by statute . . . provided that such statute either . . . [require s withholding] in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or . . . establishes par

ticular c riteria f

or withholding or

ref ers to par ticular ty pe s o f m atte rs to b e wi thh e ld. ” 5 U .S. C. § 55 2 ( b) (3 ); see also Senateof P.R. v. U.S. De p’t of Justice , 823 F.2d 574, 582 ( D.C. Cir. 1987).
a. F e de r al G r and J ur y M at e r ial s The F eder al Rules of Criminal Procedur e prohibit disclosure of “matter s occur

ringbefor e [a] g rand jury .” F ED . R. C R IM . P. 6 (e )( 2) ; see I n re Motions of Dow Jones &Co., Inc. , 142 F.3d 496, 498-501 (D.C. Cir.), cert. de nied sub nom. Dow Jone s &Co., Inc. v. Clinton , 525 U.S. 820 (1 99 8) . Ru le 6( e ) i s a

statut e fo r p ur

po se s o f E xemp tio n 3 be c a us e Con g re ss a ff

ir mativ e ly
enac ted it. See F

und for Const itutional

Gov’ t v. Nat’l Archives &Rec ords Serv., 656 F.2d 856, 86 7- 68 (D .C. Cir . 1 98 1) . In th is C ir c uit , th e g ra nd jur y e xce pti on

is l imi te d to mate ri a l w hic h, if disclosed, would “tend to r evea l some secr et aspe ct of the grand jury ’s investig ation, such . . . as the identities of witnesses or jur ors, the substance of testimony , the strategy or direc tion of the investigation, the deliberations or questions of jurors, and the like.” Senate of P.R. , 823 F.2d at 582. T h e F B Iw it

h h o ld s “ th e n ame s o f

in d iv id u a ls w h o te s ti f

ie d b e f o r e th e [g r an d

ju r y ],22

persona l information of third par ties merely

mentioned, and pr operty items seized during the investigation” of plaintiff’s dr ugtraff ickingactivities. Har dy

I IDec l. ¶ 28 & Ex . F at 19-20, 77. Th e de c lara

tio n e xpla ins that th e inf

or matio n w ithhe ld i s “ on ly

that in fo rm atio n whic h e xplic itl y discloses matters oc curr ing be fore a [gr and jury].” Id. I ts disclosure “c ould reve al the inner working s of the [gr and jury] t hat consider ed [plaintiff’s] case,” id. , a nd the c ourt c on c ur s th at th is information is protecte d under Exemption 3.

b . Co n f i d en ti a l Co n f

l i ct o f I n te re s t C er ti f

i ca ti o n Fo rms The EOU SA withholds i n full two documents desc ribed a s Confidential Conflict of Intere st Certifications. Rev. Stearns I IDec l. ¶ 6. Pursuant to the Ethics in Governme nt Act of 1978, see5 U.S.C. App. 4 § 107(a)( 1), an A ssistant United St ates Attorne y must “complete [a] conflict of inter est ce rtification[] for e ach c ase to whic h [he] is assigne d.” Id. , E x. A ( Do c . N os . 5, 16). “Any

information re quired to be pr ovided by an individual . . . shall be conf idential and shall not be disclosed to the public.” 5 U .S.C. App. 4 § 107(a)(2) . “Section 107(a ) leaves no discretion on this issue with the ag encie s,” and “ [t ]hese repor ts and the information which they contain ar e, ac cording ly , exempt from beingrele ased to the public, unde r [5 U.S.C . § 552(b)( 3)(A) and (B )].” 5 C.F.R. § 2634.901(d). Th e c ourt c on c lud e s th at th e EO USApr op e rl y wi thh e ld t

he tw o Co nf

lic t of Inte re st Certification reports under Ex emption 3. Glascoe v . U.S. Dep’ t of Justice , No. 04-0486, 2005 WL1139269, at *2 (D.D .C. May 15, 2005) (c oncludingthat DOJ properly withheld a Conflict of Intere st Certification re port under E x emption 3). The Ethics in Gove rnment Ac t require s that these re ports rema in confidential a nd leave s the EOUSA no discre tion on the issue. 3. Exe m pt ion 523

Ex emption 5 protects fr om disclosure “inter -ag ency or intra- ag ency

memorand[a] or letters which w ould not be available 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 t he pr ote c tio ns ava ila

ble to l iti g ants in c ivi l di sc ov e ry ; if mate ri a l is no t ‘ ava ila

ble ’ i n discovery , it may

be withheld fr om FOIA re questers.” Burka v. U .S. Dep’ t of Health & Human Servs ., 87 F .3 d 5 08 , 5 16 (D .C. Cir . 1 99 6) ; NLRB v. Sears, Roebuc k &Co. , 421 U.S. 132, 148 (1975). Attorney work produc t is among the ty pes of mate rial that is not available in discove ry . See , e.g. , Fed. Trade Comm’n v . Grolier, Inc. , 462 U.S. 19, 27 (1983). The attorney
wo rk -p ro du c t pr ivi le g e pr ote c ts m ate ri a l g athe re d a nd me mor and a

pr e pa re d b y an atto rn e y

in anticipation of litigation. See H ickman v . Taylor , 3 29 U. S. 4 95 (1 94 7) . Re c or ds are pr op e rl y withheld as attorne y

work produc t if they

contain the “ mental impressions, conclusions, opinions or leg al theorie s of an attorney” and w ere “pre pare d in anticipation of litigation.” F ED . R. C IV . P. 26(b)( 3). The pr ivilege also “c overs f actua l materials pre pare d in anticipation of litigation.” Hegge stad v. U.S. De

p’t of Justice , 1 8 2 F. S u

p p . 2 d 1 , 8 (D
. D. C
. 2 0 0 0 ) ( ci t i n g Tax Analysts v. IRS, 117 F.3d 607, 620 ( D.C. Cir. 1997)). Attorney work produc t can be protec ted under the deliberative proce ss privileg e. Hegge stad , 182 F. Supp. 2d at 7. Th e de lib e rativ e pr oc e ss p ri vil e g e “ sh ie lds on ly g ov e rnme nt ‘ mate ri a ls whic h a re bo th prede cisional and de liberative.’ ” Tax An aly sts , 1 1 7 F. 3 d

at6 1 6 (qu o t i n g W

olfe v. De p’t of Health &Human Serv

s ., 83 9 F .2 d 7 68 , 7 74 (D .C. Cir . 1 98 8) (e n b anc )) . T o s ho w that a do c ume nt i s p re de c isi on a l, t he a g e nc y ne e d n ot i de nti fy

a sp e c if ic fi na l a g e nc y

de c isi on ; it

is sufficie nt to establish “what deliber ative proc ess is involved, and the role play ed by theThe EO US A withh olds unde r the deliberativ e pro cess p riv ileg e “inte rnal an d p re- 9 decision al inv estig ativ e form s that were prepared by an AU SAin anticipation of litig ation ag ainst P laintiff and his co- consp irators .
. . [a ddressin g ], in ter alia, pro posed inv estig atory

techn iques, litig ation alternativ es an d strateg ies, and the AUS A’s person al ev aluation of facts relev ant to the crim inal ca se.” R ev . S tearns I I ID ecl. ¶ 15 & Ex . D (D oc . N o. 2 ). Th e fo rm s “d o no t r ef le ct f in al a g en cy

a ct io n, ” an d th ei r di sc lo sure “ co ul d j eopard iz e the candid

and com prehen siv e co m

m unication s that are ess ential fo r efficient and effectiv e ag ency

dec ision- m ak ing .” Id. The docum ents are w ithheld in full becau se “the attorney

w ork pro duct and deliberativ e pro cess in form ation
. . . is so interwo v en a s to m ak e all the in form ation
. . . protected .” Id. ¶ 16
. Notw ithstandin g these assertio ns, the Vau ghn I nd exd oe s no t i nd ic at e th at th e E O U S A r el ie s on

E xe m pt io n 5 to w ithh ol d (continued...) 24 documents at issue in the c ourse of that proce ss.” Hegge

stad , 182 F. Supp. 2d at 7 (quoting Coastal St ates Gas Corp. v. Dep’ t of Energy , 617 F.2d 854, 868 ( D.C. Cir. 1980)). A doc ument is “deliberative” if it “make s rec ommendations or expresses opinions on leg al or policy matters.” Vaughn v. Rose n , 5 23 F .2 d 1 13 6, 11 43 -4 4 ( D. C. C ir . 1 97 5) . T he de lib e ra tiv e pr oc e ss p ri vil e g e is thought to “pr event injury to the quality

of ag ency

decisions.” Sears, Roebuc k &Co. , 421 U.S. at 151. Such protec tion encoura g es fr ank discussion of policy matters, pre vents premature disclosure of pr oposed policies, and a voids public confusion that may result from disclosure of rationale s that were not ultim ately g rounds for a g ency

action. See, e .g. , Russell v. De p’t of the Air Force , 682 F.2d 1045, 1048 ( D.C. Cir. 1982).
a. F BI Th e F B Iwi thh old s in

fu ll a dr a ft “ Af fi davit in s up po rt

of an a pp lic atio n to se ize ve hic le s” under Exemption 5. Hardy I IDec l. ¶ 31 & Ex . F at 183-91. The Af fidavit “ha d not y et bee n approve d or sig ned as a

final ver sion of the document,” id. ¶ 31, and the ref ore, the decla

ration claims, the docume nt was pre decisional. It is not clear that the dr aft is deliber ative, howe ver, a nd the FB Idoes not establish that this draft Af fidavit proper ly

is withheld under Exemption 5. B. E OU SA 9(...continued) 9 inform ation on these inv estig ation initiation form s. See id. , E x. D ( D oc . N o. ). Th is discrepancy

in the E OU SA ’s sub m ission is no t fatal b ecause the court conclu des that th es e fo rm s pr op er ly

are w ithh el d un de r E xe m pt io n 5 as a tt or

ne y w or k p ro du ct . 25 The EOU SA withholds under Ex emption 5 as attorney work produc t “a letter

prepa red by an AUSA . . . to his client [discussing] lit iga tion filed by

[t he plaintiff] ag ainst the client and litigation that the AUSA wa s contemplatingfiling a g ainst [t he plaintiff] to enjoin him from hara ssing the c lient in the future.” Rev. Stearns I I IDec l. ¶ 15 & Ex . D (Doc . No. 1). The letter “deta iled the AUSA’s litigation strateg y and asse ssment of the fa cts of the c ase.” Id. ¶ 15. Also withheld are an interna l e-mail messag e “pr epar ed duringthe cour se of the pr osecution of Plaintiff and his co-c onspirators” disc ussing c ase la w, Rev. Stearns I I IDec l., Ex . A (Doc . No. 6), the AUSA’s ha

ndwritten notes, dra ft corr espondenc e, a dr aft guilty plea, a memorandum of the prosec utor’s strate g y , and other litigation mater ials cre ated in pre paration for or duringthe prosec ution of the drugconspirac y case ag ainst Plainti ff a

nd his co-conspirators. Id. , Ex . A (Doc . Nos. 10-14, 17-23, 26) . The de clar ation establishes that these materials we re g ather ed or pr e pa re d b y an atto rn e y

in a nti c ipatio n o f l iti g atio n a

nd , th e re fo re , th e EO USApr op e rl y withholds thi s information under E x emption 5. 4. Exe m pt ion 6 Ex emption 6 protects fr om disclosure “pe rsonnel and me dical files a nd simil ar f

iles the disclosure of which would constitute a c lear ly unwar rante d invasion of per sonal privac y .” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6). The term “similar files” is construed broa dly and is “intende d to cover detailed Gove rnment re cords on a n individual which can be identified as a pplying to that individual.” U.S. Dep’ t of State v. W ash. Post Co. , 456 U.S. 595, 602 (1982) (c itation omit ted).Wh er e th e F B I , th e E O U S A and th e D E A r el y

o n E xe m pt io n 6 inc on

jun ct io n w ith 10 Exem

ption 7(C), see H ardy

I ID ecl. ¶ ¶ 14 (Sum m . o f Justification C ateg ories), 34, 36 , 39- 47; R ev . S tearns I ID ecl., Ex . A(D oc. Nos . 2 , 1 8- 20, 22
- 23); L ittle De cl. ¶ 15 n. 2, the court consid ers the dec isions to w ithhold such inform ation in its discuss ion o f E xe m pt io n 7( C ). Altho ug h the EO US A purpo rts to withh old under Exem ption 7(C) the “id entity

of and 11 person al info rm ation about the third p arty indiv idual to w hom

D ocum ent 1 w as sent,” Rev . S tearns I I ID ecl. ¶

18 , it is no t clear that the letter w as co m piled for a law

(continued...) 26 The thre shold is “fairly

minimal,” such that “[a]ll information which a pplies to a particula

r individual is covered by

Ex emption 6, reg ardle ss of the ty pe of f ile in which it is contained.” W ash. Post Co. v. U.S. Dep’ t of Health & Human Serv s . , 6 9 0 F. 2 d

2 5 2 , 2 6 0 (1 9 8 2 ) ( qu o t i n g U.S. Dep’ t of State v. W

ash. Post Co. , 4 56 U. S. at 60 2) (i nte rn a l qu otatio n ma rk s o mitte d) . In th is way , the “F OIA’s prote ction of per sonal privac y is not affe cted by

the happe nstance of the ty pe of ag ency rec ord in which pe rsonal information is st ored.” Id. ; see N.Y . Times Co. v. Nat’l Ae ro na uti cs &Sp ac e Ad

mi n ., 920 F.2d 1002, 1004- 05 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (e n banc) (conc luding that Ex emption 6 protecte d disclosure of a tape of voice c ommunications aboard the Challeng er space shuttle beca

use “it applies to par

ticular individuals”).
a. EOU SA Wit h respe ct to eig ht documents, the EOUSA a ppear s to have withheld infor mation under Ex emption 6 alone. SeeR e v . S t e ar n s II D e c l
. , E x . A ( D o c . N o s . 1 , 7
- 9 , 2 4
- 2 5 ) ; R e v . S t e ar n s III 10 Dec l., Ex . D (Doc . No. 1). In one instance , the EOUSA withholds a third par ty ’s initials. See Re v. Ste arn s I IDe c l., Ex. A(D oc . N o. 1) . In a no the r i ns tanc e , th e EO USAwi thh old s th e name of and othe r identifying inf ormation about a third pa rty to whom an Assistant United States Attorney sent a letter

perta ining to litigation broug ht by the plaintiff. SeeRev. Stearns I I IDec l., Ex . D (Doc . No. 1). In all other instance s, the ag ency withholds the name of a

n alleg ed co- 11(...continued) 11 enforcem ent p urpose w ithin th e sco pe o f Ex em ption 7. A ccordin g to the Vau ghn inde x, the letter pertains to litig ation brought by the plaintiff an d is not a

pro duct of the crim inal procee ding s ag ainst h im
. See id. , E x. A (Doc . N o. 1). This m atter is of n o co nsequ ence, ho w ev er , b ec au se th e C ourth as c on cl ud ed th at th is s am e in fo rm at io n pr op er ly is withh eld under Exem

ption 6. See Simo n v. D ep’t o f Justice , 980 F.2d782, 785 (D.C. Cir. 1994 ). B ec au se th e co urt c on cl ud es th at th es e S oc ia l S ec ur ity

num be rs p ro pe rl y

are w ithh el d 12 unde r Ex em

ption 6, it need

no t determ ine whether they also are p rotected unde r Exem ption 7(C). See Simo n , 9 80 F.2 d at 785. 27 conspirator

in the drugconspirac y

for whic h the plaintiff wa s prosec uted. SeeR e v . S t e ar n s II Dec l., Ex . A (Doc . Nos. 7-9, 24-25)
. b. C BP Un de r E xemp tio n 6 , th e CB P “ ha s w ithhe ld t he pe rs on a l id e nti fy

inginf or matio n o f i ts personne l.” Hanson D ecl. ¶ 10. Specifica lly , the CPB has re dacte d from one doc ument the Social Security

numbers of f

eder al employ ees on the g round that their “ rele ase w ould be considere d a cle arly

unwar rante d invasion of privac y .” Id. , Ex . A (Doc . No. 003). I t is clear that third parties’ initials, names, or Socia l Security numbers apply

to particular individuals, and, thus, this information meets the thre shold require ment for Exemption 6 protec tion. 5 U.S.C . § 552(b)( 6); U.S. Dep’ t of State v. W ash. Post Co. , 456 U.S. at 602. The parties do not identify

a public intere st in the disclosure of this information, and the c ourt conclude s that these initials, names, and Social Sec urity numbers prope rly

are withheld under Ex emption 6. 12 5. Exe m pt ion 7
a. Law Enfo r c e m e ntRe c or ds Ex emption 7 protects fr om disclosure “r ecor ds or information compiled f or lawThe m aterials fo rward ed b y the FB Ito the D EAare copies of the D EAFo rm 7, a six- 13 copy

carb on form

entitled “R eport of D rugPro perty C ollected, Purchased

or Seiz ed.” Little D ecl. ¶

12
. The DE A- 7 h as 3 8 num bered block s on

the front and instruction s printed on the b ack
. Id. The form is u sed “by

othe r Fe deral, state an d loc al law (continued...) 28 enfor ceme nt purposes,” but only to the extent that dis closure of such re cords would c ause a n
e nume rate d h arm . 5 U. S.C. § 5 52 (b )( 7) ; see FB I v. Abram son , 4 5 6 U
. S
. 6 1 5 , 6 2 2 ( 1 9 8 2 )
. In order to withhold materials proper ly under Exemption 7, an ag ency must establish that the
rec ords at issue we re c ompiled for law e nforc ement purpose s, and that the mate rial satisfies the require ments of one of

the subparts of E x emption 7. See Pratt v. W ebster , 673 F.2d 408, 413 (D.C. Cir. 1982). In assessingwhether rec ords ar e compiled f

or law e nforc ement purpose s, the “foc us is on how and under what cir cumstance s the reque sted files we re c ompiled, and whethe r the files soug ht relate to any thing that c an fa irly

be cha rac terized as an e nforc ement proc eeding .” Jefferson v . Dep’ t of Justice , 284 F.3d 172, 176- 77 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (c itations and internal quotations omit ted). i. F BI The F BI ’s “investig atory

rec ords at issue in this matter ar e par t of the F BI ’s Central Re c or ds Sy ste m and

c on c e rn a c ri min a l inve sti g atio n o f p la int if f .
. . fo r n arc oti c s c ha

rg e s in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) .” Ha rdy I IDec l. ¶ 17. Specifica lly , the re cords “ relate to a criminal investig ation of plaintiff’s involveme nt in ill eg al traf fickingof nar cotics in the Br oadwa y Townhouses located in Newa rk, Ne w J erse y ,” a la

w enf orce ment matter ove r which the FB Ihas jurisdiction. Id. ¶ 46. Amongthese re cords a re “ 74 pag es of lab r eports . . . cr eate d by the FB Iand sent to the DEAin connec tion with the FB I ’s investig ation of Plaintiff for eng ag ing in illeg al drugdistribution activiti es.” Har dy I I IDec l. ¶ 10. 13(...continued) 13 enforcem ent ag encies whe n su bstance s are forwarded to a DE A forensic laborato ry for testing ,” id. ¶ 14, and , e xcept for B lock 3 (G- DE P id entifiers), “those other law enforcem ent ag encies are req uired to co m

plete B lock s 1 throug h 1 7.” Id. B lock s 1 th ro ugh 17 in cl ud e su chit em s as th e pl ac e w he re and th e m eans b y

w hi chth e dr

ug s w er e ob ta in ed ( e. g . , p ur ch as e, s ei z ur e, f re e sam pl e) , th e fi le num

be r an d ti tl e, th e date prepared , th e ty

pe and appro xim ate qu antity of drug s, and “a n arrativ e that m ay inclu de the n am es o f lawenfo rcem ent o fficers an d third parties, and

othe r inform ation reg arding the se iz ure.” Id . ¶

12 & Ex . C (sam

ple D EA
- 7 fo rm ). DE A laborato ry perso nnel com plete B lock s 18 throu g h 3 8. Id. ¶ 15
. “Blo ck s 16 and

17 con tain the nam es o f D EA special ag ents and Bloc k s 19 , 2 2, 33 and 36 contain the nam es an d/or s ig natures of law enforcem ent p ersonn el or DE A laborato ry em ploy ees,” and

“B lock 24 is u sed to de scribe the res ults o f the laborato ry ana ly sis inclu dinga descriptio n an d q uantity of the alleg ed drug s that were tested. ” Id. ¶ 13
. 29 Ba sed on information contained in NKF O investig ative file 245D -NK- 97240, “on Dec ember

17, 1999, plaintiff, alongwith severa l co-de fenda nts, was cha

rg ed with possession with intent to dis tribute heroin, c onspiracy to distribute narcotics, a

nd other drugoffe nses. Har dy IDec l. ¶ 5. The plaintiff ple d g uilty to conspirac y

to distribute narcotics a

nd was sente nced to a term of 325 months’ inca rce ration on Jul y

7, 2000. Id. ii. EOU SA Th e EO USAre c or ds at is su e in t his matte r a

re ma int a ine d in

the Cr imi na l Ca se F ile Sy stem (J USTI CE/USA-007), Rev. Stearns I IDec l. ¶ 7, and we re “ cre ated or compiled by

an [Assi stant United States Attorney] i n the context of prosec uting Plaintiff and/orhis coconspirator s for violations of drugdistribution and other laws.” Id. ¶ 8. Gi ve n th e natur e of

the pla int if

f’ s f a c tua l a lle g atio ns in t

he Com pla int , th e c on te nt o f h is FOIA re quests, and the de scriptions of the re cords located pursuant to the F BI ’s and the EOUSA’s sea

rche s, it is clear that the r eleva nt rec ords wer e compiled f or law e nforc ement purposes. The FB Iand the EO USA make a threshold showingthat the re cords r esponsive to theT he co urt addr ess es i n it s di scu ssi on of Exem pti on 7( D) th ose ins ta nce s wher e the FBI 14 r e l i e s o nEx e mp t i o n7 ( C ) i nc o n j u n c t i o nwi t h Ex e mp t i o n7 ( D ) t o wi t h h o l d th e s a me inform ation. 30 plaintiff’s F OIA re quests fall within the scope of Ex emption 7. b. Exem ption 7(C) 14 Ex emption 7(C) protec ts from disclosure infor mation in law enfor ceme nt rec ords that “could r easona

bly be expected to c onstitut e an unw arr anted invasion of pe rsonal priva cy .” 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(7)( C). In deter mining whe ther this exemption applies to particular mate rial, the Court must balance the interest in privac y of individuals mentioned in the rec ords ag ainst the public interest in disclosure. Bec k v. D ep’t of Justice , 997 F.2d 1489, 1491 ( D.C. Cir. 1993). Individuals have a

“stronginterest in not beingassociate d unwar rante dly with alleg ed cr iminal activity .” Stern v. FBI

, 737 F.2d 84, 91- 92 (D.C. Cir. 1984). “[T]he only public interest re levant for pur poses of Exemption 7(C) is one that focuses on ‘ the citizens’ rig ht to be informed a bout what their g overnme nt is up to.’” Davis v. U .S. Dep’ t of Justice , 968 F.2d 1276, 1282 ( D.C. Cir. 1 9 9 2 ) ( qu o t i n g U. S. De

p’ t of J us tic e v . R e

po rte rs C om m. for Fr e e do m o

f th e Pr ess , 4 89 U. S. 749, 773 (1989))
. i. Law Enf

orce m ent and S upp ort P ersonnel and O ther G overnm ent Em ployees F BI The F BI withholds the names of, Social Sec urity numbers of, a

nd telephone numbe rs of FB ISpecial Ag ents “who w ere responsible for conducting , supervising , and/or maintainingthe investigative activities repor ted in the files re sponsive to plaintiff’s re quests.” Ha rdy I IDec l. ¶ 50 ; see id. ¶ 5 1. Th e de c laratio n e xpla ins that th e se a g e nts “ c on du c t of fi c ia l in qu ir ie s into vio latio ns of

va ri ou s c ri min a l st atut e s a

nd natio na l se c ur ity

c a se s, ” and

in t he c ours e of

the ir31

work they “come into contact with all strata of society” as the y , for e x ample, make arr ests or otherwise disturb the lives of others. Id. I f their identities we re disclose d, they may be subjec ted to “unnec essar

y , unofficia l questioning re g ardingthis and/or other investig ations, whether or not they are curr ently

employ ed by

the FB I .” Id. In a dd iti on , “ pu bli c ity a sso c iate d w iththe re le a se of [a Special Ag ent’s] identity in connec tion with a particular law enf orce ment investigation could re kindle animosity

toward that [ Special Ag ent]” on the part of persons tar g eted or otherwise a ffe cted by

law enf orce ment action involving the ag ent. Id. Special Ag ents, then,

“ ma int a in s ub sta

nti a l pr iva c y

int e re sts in n ot h avin gthe ir ide nti tie s d isc los e d” in o rd e r t o “prote ct [them] , as individuals, from unnec essar y , unofficia l questioning” reg ardingthis or other investigations. Id. Simi larly , the FB Iwithholds the names of a nd identifying inf

ormation about F BI

support personne l. Id. ¶ 51. These employ ees “ wer e assig ned to handle ta sks relatingto the officia l investigation into t he ac tiviti es of plaintiff a nd others and a

re ide ntified by

name in the f

iles responsive to plaintiff’ s reque st.” Id . B e c a us e the se e mpl oye e s “ we re , a nd po ssi bly are , in po sit ion s to a c c e ss i nf

or matio n r e g ard ingof

fi c ia l la w e nf or c e me nt i nv e sti g atio ns ,” the y “ c ou ld become targ ets of har assinginquiries for una uthorized acc ess to investigations if their identities
wer e re lease d.” Id. F or

the se re a so ns , th e se e mpl oye e s “ ma int a in s ub sta nti a l pr iva c y

int e re sts in not havingtheir identities disclosed.” Id. The F BI applies this same rationale to support its decision to withhold “the names and titles of law enf

orce ment employ ees of

the New ark Police D epar tment, Port Authority

Police and Essex C ounty

Sheriff’ s Offic e . . . [who] aided the FB Iin the law enf orce ment investigations of plaintiff,” id. ¶ 55, as we ll as “the names and tele phone number s of a De partment of V eter ans32

Affa irs employ ee a

nd a United States Mar shals Service employ ee,” id. ¶ 5 8. Re le a se of the ir ide nti tie s “ c ou ld s ub

je c t th e m a s in div idu a ls t o unn e c e ssa ry , unw arr ante d h ara ssm e nt, ” and c ou ld make them “ prime targ et[s] for r eprisal.” Id. ¶¶ 55, 58. EOU SA Th e EO USAwi thh old s “ the name of a thi rd pa rt y fe de ra l e mpl oye e wh o w a s invo lve d in the inv e sti g atio n o f p la int if f a nd his c o- c on sp ir ator s” so a s to pr ote c t th is i nd ivi du a l “ a g a ins t h ar a s s m e n tan d

an n o y an c e i nth e c o n d

u c to f o f f i c i a l d u t i e s an d i np r i v at e l i f

e . ” R e v . S t e ar

n s II Dec l., Ex . A (Doc . No. 18). DE A Fr om the lab re ports ref

err ed by the FB Ito the DEA, the D EA re dacts only “the names of DEA labor atory

personne l in Blocks 23-24, 34, a nd 37.” L ittle Decl. ¶ 15. In addition, on three of these 74 pa g es, the DEAalso reda cts “the na me of a laboratory

staff me mber . . . in B lock 38.” Id. The F BI

also has re dacte d from the names of F BI Special Ag ents who we re involved in the criminal investig ation of the plaintiff a nd ref ere nced in the 74 pa g es of lab r eports re fer red to a nd returne d by

the DEA. H ardy

I I IDec l. ¶ 10. Fur

ther, with re spect to the re maining 534 pa g es of lab re ports, the FB Ireda cted “ only the names a

nd other identify

ing inf ormation of the DE A lab personne l and the F BI

Special Ag ents ref

ere nced the rein.” Har dy

I V Dec l. ¶ 15. Redac tion of the names of fede ral lawenfor ceme nt office rs, support per sonnel and other employ ees unde r similar circ umstances r outinely is upheld. See, e .g. , Halpern v. FB I , 181 F.3d 279, 296-98 (2d Cir. 1999) ( concludingthat the names of and identify

ing a nd persona l inf or matio n a bo ut n on -F B Ig ov e rnme nt e mpl oye e s a nd no n- fe de ra l la

w e nf or c e me nt o ff

ic e rs is pr ote c te d und e r E xemp tio n 7 (C ) b e c a us e re le a se of

the inf or matio n c ou ld s ub

je c t th e m to33

e mba rr a ssm e nt o r h ara ssm e nt i n th e c on du c t of the ir of fi c ia l dutie s a

nd pe rs on a l li ve s) ; Lesar v. U.S. Dep’ t of Justice , 6 36 F .2 d 4 72 , 4 87 (D .C. Cir . 1 98 7) (f ind ingle g iti mate int e re st i n pr e se rv ingthe ide nti tie s o f g ov e rnme nt o ff ic ia ls whe re dis c los ur e c ou ld s ub je c t th e m to annoyance or har assment in either the ir offic ial or private lives). The c ourt conc ludes that the FB I , the EOUSA a

nd the DEA pr operly

withheld the names of

and identify

ing inf ormation about specia l ag ents, local lawenfor ceme nt officials, F BI and other g overnme nt employ ees unde r Ex emption 7(C). 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)( C); Bec k, 997 F.2d at 1491. ii. Thir d P ar ti e s Thir d P ar ti e s o f Inve st iga ti ve Int e r e st Th e F B Iwi thh old s und e r E xemp tio n 7 (C ) i nf or matio n in the re c or ds re sp on siv e to plaintiff’s re quest about “third pa rties of investig ative intere st to the FB Ior other la w
e nf or c e me nt a g e nc ie s . . . du e to t he ir a sso c iatio n w iththe pla int if f o r w ithoth e r s ub

je c ts o f t his inv e sti g atio n. ” Ha

rd y I IDe c l. ¶ 52 ; see id. ¶ 53. In addition to their names, the F BI withholds the ir “ a dd re sse s, da te s o f b ir th, so c ia l se c ur ity

numbe rs , a lia se s, te le ph on e numbe rs , F B Iarr e st numbers, license plate number s, police depa rtment numbers, fing erpr int classifications, and persona l char acte ristics.” Id. ¶ 5 2. Di sc los ur e of the ide nti tie s o f t

he se thi rd pa rt ie s “ a s su

bje c ts of F B Iint e re st r e su lti ngfr om i ts i nv e sti g atio n o f i lle g a l na rc oti c s tr a ff

ic kin gc ou ld s ub

je c t th e se individuals to harassment and e mbarra ssment and could fur ther re sult in undue public attention.” Id. Simi larly , the EOUSA withholds “the names and other identifying inf

ormation . . . [ab out] po te nti a l th ir d p art y c ri min a l de fe nd ants ” me nti on e d in the Inv e sti g atio n Init iatio n F or ms pr e pa re d b y an A ssi sta

nt Unit e d St ate s A tto rn e y fo r u se in c onne c tio n w ithan O rg anize d Cr ime34

DrugEnforc ement Ta sk Forc e. Rev. Stear ns I I IDec l., Ex . D (Doc . No. 2). In order to “protec t those individuals from hara ssment, embarr assment and stig matization,” and absent a ny indication that these individuals “have waived the ir rig hts to privacy ,” the EO USA asser ts that “rele ase of [t heir] names would violate their pr ivacy rig hts.” Id. Thir d P ar ti e s M e r e ly M e nt ion e d in La w Enfor c e m e ntRe c or ds Th e F B Iwi thh old s “ the name s and ide nti fy inginf or matio n o f t

hir d p art ie s me re ly mentioned in the law e nforc ement investig atory rec ords re sponsive to plaintiff’s re quest.” Ha rdy I IDe c l. ¶ 54 ; see id. ¶ 5 5. Th e se ind ivi du a ls “ int e ra c te d w ithpla int if f o r o the r i nd ivi du a ls associate d with plaintiff and [were ] m entioned in these [investigatory ] files.” Id. ¶ 54. I dentifying inf

ormation about these individuals includes their “addr esses, lice nse plate numbe rs and re g istration information, dates of bir th, aliases, [and] care er a

nd job titl es.” Id. Th e se individuals “were not of investiga tive interest to the F BI ,” and the “re lease of this ty pe of inf or matio n a bo ut p ri vate ind ivi du a ls w ith out [th e ir wr itt e n c on se nt] w ou ld d isc los e the ir
c onne c tio n w iththe F B I ’s inv e sti g atio n o f p la int if f a nd oth e rs ,” and , in

tur n, “ c ou ld s ub

je c t th e se individuals to harassment or c riticism and focus de rog atory infere nces a

nd suspicion on them.” Id. Th e EO USA , to o, wi thh old s th e name s o f t hir d p art ie s w ho a

pp e ar i n th e ir

re c or ds , including individuals who a ppear to be co- conspirator s in the drugconspirac y for whic h plaintiff was prose cuted. SeeRev. Stearns I IDec l., Ex . A (Doc . Nos. 7-8, 24-25) . In addition, the EOUSA withholds the name of a third par

ty who provided infor

mation to the gove rnment in the
course of the c riminal investigation of plaintiff and his co- conspirator s. Id. , Ex . A (Doc . Nos. 20, 22-23).35

Ex emption 7(C) rec og nizes that the stigma of be ing a ssociated with any law enf orce ment investigation affor ds broad pr ivacy rig hts to those who are connec ted in any way with such an investigation unless a signific ant public intere st ex ists for disclosure. Reporters Comm. for Fr e e do m o

f th e Pr ess , 489 U.S. at 773-775; SafeCard Servs., Inc

. , 9 26 F .2 d at 12 05 -0 6; se e als o Bast v. U.S. De

p’t of Justice , 665 F.2d 1251, 1254 ( D.C. Cir. 1981) (holding that, in light of the stigma pote ntially

associate d with law enf

orce ment investigations, Ex emption 7(C) aff ords broa d pr iva c y ri g hts to s us pe c ts, wi tne sse s and inv e sti g ator s) . T he dis c los ur e of the name s o f p ri vate ind ivi du a ls m e nti on e d in

law e nf or c e me nt f

ile s w ou ld s e rv e a

signif ic ant p ub lic int e re st o nly wh e re “ the re is c omp e lli nge vid e nc e that th e a g e nc y de nyingthe F OIA r e qu e st i s e ng a g e d in illega l activity ,” and that the information soug ht “is nece ssary in order to c onfirm or re fute that evidenc e.” Da v is , 9 68 F .2 d at 12 82 . T he pla int if f d e mon str ate s n o s uc h p ub lic int e re st w ith
re sp e c t to the thi rd

pa rt ie s d e sc ri be d a

bo ve , in c lud ingtho se of

inv e sti g ativ e int e re st o r t ho se
mere ly mentioned in responsive r ecor ds. The F BI ’s and the E OUSA’s dec isions to wit hhold the names of a nd identifying information about third par ties of investig ative intere st and about individuals who mere ly are mentioned in these lawenfor ceme nt rec ords ar e fully supported by

the ca se law. See, e .g. , Sussman v. U.S. M

arshals Serv. , 494 F.3d 1106, 1115 ( D.C. Cir. 2007) (holding that Ex emption 7(C) protec ts “the privac y interests of a ll persons mentioned in law e nforc ement re cords, whe ther they be investig ators, suspec ts, witnesses, or informa nts,” and their na

mes are “g ener ally

exempt fr om d isc los ur e ” ); Rugiero v. U.S. D ep’t of Justice , 257 F.3d 534, 552 ( 6th Cir. 2000) (conc luding that the a g ency proper ly withheld “identify

ing inf ormation on ag ents, personne l, and third parties a fter ba lancingthe privac y interests ag ainst public disclosure), cert. de nied , 5 34 U. S.36

11 34 (2 00 2) ; SafeCard Servs., Inc

. , 9 26 F .2 d at 12 06 (h old ingtha t “ name s a

nd a dd re ss o f p ri vate individuals appear ing in f iles within the ambit of Ex emption 7(C) . . . [are] exempt from disclosure” ). c. Exem ption 7(D) Ex emption 7(D) pr otects fr om disclosure those re cords or information compiled for law
e nf or c e me nt p ur

po se s th at: could rea sonably be expected to disc lose the identity of a conf idential source . . . [who] furnished infor mation on a confide ntial ba sis, and, in the case of a r ecor d or informatio n co m p iled by a cr iminal law enfor ceme n t au t hority

in the course of a c riminal investigation. . ., information furnishe d by

a conf idential source
. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)( D). The re is no assumption that a sourc e is confide ntial for purpose s of Ex emption 7(D) whe never a sourc e provide s information to a law e nforc ement ag ency in the
course of a c riminal investigation. See U .S. Dep’ t of Justice v. Landano , 508 U.S. 165, 181 (1993). Rathe r, a sour ce’ s confidentiality must be determined on a case -by -ca se basis. Id . at 179-80. “Asource is confidential within the meaningof [Ex emption] 7(D) if the source provided infor

mation under a

n express assuranc e of c onfidentiality or in circ umstances f

rom which such a

n assura nce c ould rea sonably

be infe rre d.” W

illiams v. FBI

, 69 F.3d 1155, 1159 (D
. C
. C i r. 1 9 9 5 ) ( ci t i n g Landano , 508 U.S. at 170-74). Im plied Grant of Conf

identiali ty Th e F B I“ so ught t

he a ssi sta nc e of nume ro us ind ivi du a ls i n o bta ini nginf or matio n to a id its investigation” of

plaintiff. Har dy

I IDec l. ¶ 61. “The FB Ihas lea rned through experience that ind ivi du a ls who pr ov ide inf or matio n a bo ut s ub je c ts und e r i nv e sti g atio n mu st b e fr e e to d o s o without fear

of re prisal should their identities or the information they provided be disclosed37

outside their conf

idential relationship wit h the FB I ,” and “ must be secur e in the knowledg e that their assistance and their ide ntities will be held in conf idence .” Id. ¶ 62. “[W] hen the identity of
one sourc e is reve aled, that r evelation has a chilling eff ect on the a ctivities and coope ration of other sourc es.” Id. ¶ 61. Such sourc es include c onfidential informa nts and coope rating witnesses. A conf idential informant is an individual “who pr ovides useful a nd cre dible information to t he F B Ire g ard ingfe lon iou s c ri min a l a c tiv iti e s a nd fr om who m th e F B Ie xpe c ts o r i nte nd s to obtain additional useful and c redible infor mation reg ardingsuch ac tiviti es in the future .” Ha rdy I IDec l. ¶ 57. A coope ratingwitness is “any individual who meets the def inition of a [c] onfidential [i] nformant . . ., but who ha s ag ree d to testify in a proc eedingas a de fenda nt or potential witness.” Id. ¶ 56. It is the FB I ’s policy to provide conf

idential source s and cooper atingwitnesses the same deg ree of protec tion. Id. ¶¶ 56- 57. Under Ex emption 7(C), the F BI withholds the name of a

nd identifying inf

ormation about a coope ratingwitness on the g round that re lease of this information is an unwar rante d invasion of this indi vidual’s privac y . Id. ¶ 56. Unde r Exemption 7(D), the FB Iwithholds “the name of , id ent if yin g inf orm ati on for , an d i nfo rm ati on pro vi dedby a [ c] oo pera ti ng [ w] it nes s . . . to th e FBI and other law enf orce ment ag encie s” conc erning“the c riminal activities of plaintiff a nd other subjects who we re of

investigative interest to the F BI and other law enf orce ment ag encie s.” Id . ¶ 63. The witness provide d “deta iled information that is singular in nature c oncer

ning the criminal activities of plaintiff, his assoc iates, and/or othe r subjects of this investig ation,” such that disclosure of the information provided “ could ena ble others to disce rn [the witness’] identit y .” Id. Th e pla int if

f a nd oth e rs “ we re arr e ste d a

nd c onvic te d o n in fo rm atio n p ro vid e d b y thi s38

individual.” Id. Be cause drugtraff ickingis inherently

violent, see id. , d isc los ur e of the wi tne ss’ ide nti ty “ c ou ld s ub

je c t [th e wi tne ss] t o v iol e nt r e pr isa ls” if “ pla int if f o r h is a sso c iate s b e c ome
awa re of [hi s or her ] cooperation with the F BI
. Id. For these re asons, the F BI

argues that the witness provided infor

mation under a

n implied gr ant of c onfidentiality
. Id. ¶ 64. Under Ex emption 7(C), the F BI withholds the name of a

nd identifying inf

ormation about a conf idential source , as “[a]ny

information that could possibly identify [t he sourc e], including dates a nd place s where he/she ha s been, is prote cted f rom disclosure since rele ase c ould cause an
unwar rante d invasion of privac y .” Id. ¶ 57. Unde r Exemption 7(D), the FB Iwithholds “the name of , identifying inf

ormation for, a

nd information provided by a conf idential source to the FB Iduringthe cour se of the F BI ’s investig ation of plaintiff.” Id . ¶ 66. The c onfidential sourc e has “know ledg e of the activities that g ave r ise to the FB I ’s investig ation,” and disc losure of the information he or

she provided “ could [be] us e[d] . . . to determine [his or her] identity .” Id. As wi th t he c oo pe ratin gwi tne ss, the c on fi de nti a l so ur c e c ou ld b e su bje c t to “ vio le nt r e pr isa ls” if plaintiff or his associates lear n of his or her

cooper ation with the FB I
. Id. As is the c a se wi th a

ny thi rd pa rt ie s w ho are me nti on e d in law e nf or c e me nt r e c or ds , confide ntial sources a

nd cooper atingwitnesses have persona l privacy interests which c annot be
ov e rc ome a

bs e nt a signif ic ant p ub lic int e re st i n th e dis c los ur e of the ir ide nti tie s. Withre sp e c t to their status as informa

nts, the decla

ration establishes that the c onfidential sourc e and c ooperating witness provided infor

mation to the FB Iunder a n implied gr ant of c onfidentiality
. Courts have he ld that the violence a nd risk of re taliation attendant to drugtraff icking
war rant a n implied gr ant of c onfidentiality to a source . See M

ays v. D rug Enforceme nt Admin. , 234 F.3d 1324, 1329 ( D.C. Cir. 2000) (withholding ide ntity of a sour ce who supplied39

inf or matio n a bo ut a c on sp ir a c y

to d istri bute c ra c k a

nd po wd e r c oc a ine ); Miller v. U.S. De p’t of Justice , 562 F. Supp. 2d 82, 123 (D.D .C. 2008) (withholding the names of a nd information provided by

source s under a

n implied assuranc e of c onfidentiality g iven the plaintiff’ s “re ported criminal history

of kidnappingand the subseque nt torture, murde r and dismember ment of bo die s” ); Shores v. FBI

, 2002 WL230756, at *4 (D.D .C. Feb. 2, 2002) (withholding the identities of and identify

ing inf ormation about three cooper atingwitnesses with knowledg e of a murder of which plaintiff wa s convicted) . In these c ircumstance s, particular ly g iven the drug tr a ff ic kin ga c tiv ity

in whic h p la int if

f a nd his c o- c on sp ir ator s e ng a g e d, it i s r e a so na ble to
con clu de t hatth e coo pera ti ng wi tn ess andcon fi den ti al s ou rce p rov id ed i nfo rm ati on to th e FBI wi th a n e xpe c tatio n th at th e ir

ide nti tie s w ou ld n ot b e dis c los e d. Th e c ourt c on c lud e s th at th is information prope rly

is withheld under Exemption 7(D).

Express Gr ant of Con fi dentiality U n d e r E x e mp t i o n s 2 an d

7 ( D ) , th e F B I w i th h o l d s a s o ur c e s y mb o l nu mb e r . H ar dy

II Dec l. ¶¶ 25, 67. Source sy mbol numbers are “assig ned to conf idential source s who have been de ve lop e d, ins tr

uc te d, c los e ly

mon ito re d, and

in m any c a se s p a id f

or the ir se rv ic e s, ” and

the se
source s “re port to the FB Iunder a n express g rant of c onfidentiality .” Id. ¶ 6 7
. A dm i n i s tr at i v e l y, the source sy

mbol numbers “conc eal a n individual’s identity ” by repla cingthe number f

or the individual’s true name
. Id. ¶ 2 5. On ly “ tho se F B Ie mpl oye e s w ho have a le g iti mate ne e d” to know the sourc e’s identity have a cce ss to such information. Id. ¶ 67. Disclosure of sourc e sy mbol numbers “at va

rious times and in various docume nts” could ena ble per sons kn ow le dg e a

ble of the F B I ’s inv e sti g atio n to “ ult imate ly ide nti fy the se so ur c e s si nc e it w ou ld
reve al the conne ctions of conf idential informants to the information provided by them.” Id. ¶ 68.40

These sour ces a

nd their families “could be subjec ted to embar rassment, humiliation, and phy sical/mental har

m” if their identities we re disclose d. Id. In a dd iti on , s uc h d isc los ur e s “ wo uld have a chilling e ffe ct on the ac tiviti es and c ooperation of other F BI confide ntial sources.” Id. The c ourt conc ludes that the sourc e sy mbol number proper ly

is withheld under Ex emptions 2 and 7(D)
. d. Ex e m pt ion 7( E) Ex emption 7(E) prote cts from disclosure law enf orce ment rec ords “to the e x tent that the production of suc h law enf orce ment rec ords or infor mation . . . would disclose techniques a nd proce dures f

or law e nforc ement investig ations or prosec utions, or would disclose g uidelines for law enf orce ment investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could re asonably be expected to risk circumve ntion of the law.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)( E). Courts have held that information perta ining to law e nforc ement tec hniques and proc edure s proper ly is withheld under Exemption 7(E) where disclosure re asonably could lead to c ircumvention of law s or re g ulations. See, e .g. , Morley v . CIA , 4 53 F . Su pp . 2 d 1 37 , 1 56 (D .D .C. 20 06 ) ( wi thh old inginf or matio n p e rt a ini ngto
se c ur ity c le ara nc e s and ba c kg ro un d inve sti g atio ns on the g ro un d th at “ dis c los ur e of CIA s e c ur ity clea ranc e and inve stigatory

proce sses would risk circ umvention of those proc esses in the futur e ” ); Piper v. U.S. D ep’t. of Justice , 294 F. Supp. 2d 16, 30 (D.D .C. 2003) (withholding polyg raph te st information on the g round that disclosure “ has the potential to allow a cunning criminal to extrapolate a pattern or method to the F BI ’s questioning technique,” and anticipate or thw art F B I ’s str ate g y

); Fisher v. U.S. D ep’t of Justice , 772 F. Supp. 7, 12 (D.D .C. 1991) (upholding FB I ’s dec ision to wit hhold information about law e nforc ement tec hniques when dis c los ur e wo uld

imp a ir e ff e c tiv e ne ss a

nd , w ith in c on te xt of

do c ume nts , “ c ou ld a le rt

su bje c ts i n41

druginvestigations about techniques used to a id the FB I ”), aff’d , 968 F.2d 92 ( D.C. Cir. 1992). Under both Ex emptions 2 and 7(E), the FB Iwithholds “FB IFor m FD- 515, . . . an investigative acc omplishm ents repor t.” Har dy I IDec l. ¶ 22. An investig ative Specia l Ag ent submits t he F D-515 “ at var ious stage s in the investigation to report statistical results such as indictments, arre sts and convictions, or the r ecove ry of stolen prope rty .” Id. In addition, the form lists “27 publicly

known investig ative tec hniques and/or a ssistance of which some we re used by the investig ative per sonnel duringthe investig ation of plaintiff.” Id. ¶ 7 0. “ Op po sit e
eac h investigative technique a nd assistance is a ratingcolumn which re cords a numerica l rating from 1 to 4 . . . on ea ch tec hnique/assistance used.” Id. The ratings “ relate[] solely to the FB I ’s internal pra ctices.” Id. ¶ 22. The F BI reda cts the entire ratingcolumn. Id. ¶ 70. I f the rating column wer e re lease d, plaintiff and other subjects of investig ation “could c hang e their a ctivities
and mod us op e ra nd i in or de r t o avo id d e te c tio n a nd /or surv e ill anc e in t

he futur e ,” and

thi s information is withheld “to preve nt future c ircumvention of the la w by criminals.” Id. Also under Exemptions 2 and 7(E) the F BI withholds “cer

tain techniques a

nd proce dures [used] in conductingcriminal investig ations and under cover operations.” Id. ¶ 2 3. Th is inf or matio n in c lud e s “ ins tr

uc tio ns to c oo pe ratin gwi tne sse s, the amou nt o f m on e y

us e d to purcha se evide nce, a

nd specific investigatory

techniques,” and “r elates solely to the FB I ’s internal pra ctices.” Id. The de clar ation explains t hat re lease of these te chniques a nd proce dures
serve s no public interest y et “would impede the FB I ’s ef fec tiveness by

providing plaintiff and other potential law

brea kers with information they could use to circ umvent the technique s at issue.” Id. Specifica lly , disclosure of inf ormation perta ining to “how it conducts underc over operations and . . . specific techniques dur ing the underc over ope ration . . . could jeopa rdize any42

future c riminal investigations and underc over ope rations conduc ted by the FB I .” Id. ¶ 71. Ha vin gre vie we d th e F B I ’s de c lara tio n a nd its Vaughn In d ex , an d

ab s en tan y

ch al l en ge from the plaintiff, the court c oncludes that the F BI proper ly withholds both t he investig ative
acc omplishm ents repor

t’s ratingcolumn and information that would revea l techniques a nd proce dures f

or conduc ting investig ations and under cover operations under Exempti on 2 and 7(E)
. See, e .g. , Peay

v. De p’t of Justice , 2007 WL788871, at *6 (D.D .C. Mar. 14, 2007) ( concluding that the FB Iproper ly

reda cted the “ entire r atingcolumn [of form FD- 515] i n order to protect . . . the spec ific tec hniques that wer e and w ere not used by the FB Iduringits investigation of plaintiff
and oth e rs ” ); Perrone v . FBI , 9 08 F. S up p. 24 , 2 8 (D .D. C. 19 95 ) (co ncl ud in g that th e FBI FD- 515 form prope rly

is withheld under Exemption 7(E) beca use “disclosure of this information would help plaintiff or pote ntial criminals predic t future investig ative ac tions by the FB Iand conseque ntly

employ counter measure s to neutralize those technique s”).

D. Se gre ga bil ity I f a re c or d c on ta ins inf

or matio n th at is e xemp t f

ro m di sc los ur e , a

ny re a so na bly se g re g a ble information must be rele ased a fter de leting the exempt portions, unl ess the non-e x empt portions
are ine xtri c a

bly int e rt wi ne d w ithe xemp t po rt ion s. 5 U .S. C. § 55 2( b) ; see Trans-Pac ific Policing Agreem ent v. U.S. Customs Serv

. , 1 77 F .3 d 1 02 2 ( D. C. C ir . 1 99 9) . T he c ourt e rr s if it “ sim ply approve [s] the withholding of an entire document without enter ing a finding on seg reg ability , or the lack the reof

.” Powell v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons , 927 F.2d 1239, 1242 n.4 ( D.C. Cir. 1991) (qu o t i n g Church of Scientology of Cal. v. U.S. De p't of the Army , 611 F.2d 738, 744 ( 9th Cir. 1979)). Th e cou rtcon clu des th at, wi th th e ex cept io n o f t he d raftAffi dav itwi th hel d b y th e FBI43

under Exemption 5, only

the exempt recor ds or portions of re cords have bee n withheld, and that all rea sonably

seg reg able mate rial has be en re lease d to the plaintiff. The c ourt has re viewed the defe ndants’ dec larations and the Vaughn indices submitted in support of their motion, and finds that they adequately

specify “in detail which por

tions of the document[s] are disclosable and which ar e alleg edly

exempt.” Vaughn , 484 F.2d at 827.

III . C ON CL USI ON Th e c ourt c on c lud e s th at th e F B Iand the EO USAc on du c te d r e a so na ble and a de qu ate
se arc he s f or re c or ds re sp on siv e to t

he pla int if

f’ s mu lti ple F OIA r e qu e sts , th at th e se c omp on e nts proper ly have w ithheld rec ords or portions of r ecor ds under Exemptions 2, 3, 6, 7(C), 7(D), a nd 7( E) , a nd that th e EO USApr op e rl y ha s w ithhe ld i nf

or matio n und e r E xemp tio n 5 . In th e se respe cts, the def

endants’ summar

y judgme nt motion wil l be g rante d. Be cause the FB Ihas not established that its decision to withhold an Affidavit under Exemption 5 i s proper , the motion will be denied in par

t without prejudice. The FB Imay file a r enew ed motion for summary judgme nt based on a dditional undisput ed fa cts or by asser ting a dditional lega l arg

uments. An Orde r ac companies this Memora ndum Opinion.

RI CARDO M. URBI

NA Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge DATE: Mar ch 27, 2009