Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cadc/99-5402/99-5402a-2011-03-24.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 17:22:45+00:00

Document:
Gail G. Billington, appearing pro se, was on the briefs for appellant.
Wilma A. Lewis, U.S. Attorney, R. Craig Lawrence and Scott S. Harris, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, were on the brief for appellee.
__________ 1 Billington is also a plaintiff in the NCLC's civil rights suit against the Attorney General and the Director of the FBI in the Southern District of New York. Several of Billington's claims in the instant case relate to redactions on documents the government has filed under seal in that case.
most of the government's exemption 7(D) withholdings, but ordered the FBI to provide a supplemental affidavit justifying redactions concerning entities that received, rather than pro- vided, information on a confidential basis. The court also found a State Department declaration justifying exemption 6 withholdings insufficient and ordered an in camera review of the documents. See 11 F. Supp. 2d 45 (D.D.C. 1998).
In Billington II, the district court upheld the government's withholdings under exemptions 1, 2, 7(C), 7(D), and 7(E), including some withholdings it had questioned in Billington I. See 69 F. Supp. 2d 128 (D.D.C. 1999).
__________ 2 Exemption 6 permits the government to withhold "personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." See 5 U.S.C. s 552(b)(6).
3 Exemption 7 permits the government to withhold "records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information * * * (C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, (D) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private institution which furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of a record or information compiled by criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, in- formation furnished by a confidential source, (E) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law * * *." See 5 U.S.C. s 552(b)(7).
tions 7(C) and 7(E), and therefore reject this portion of Billington's appeal substantially for the reasons given by the district court. Of the remaining issues we reverse and re- mand (with one exception, see note 5 infra) for the reasons given in the balance of this opinion.
FOIA requires the government to disclose, upon request, broad classes of documents identified in 5 U.S.C. s 552(a). It exempts from disclosure nine categories of documents de- scribed in 5 U.S.C. s 552(b). The government is entitled to summary judgment if no material facts are in dispute and if it demonstrates either that withheld or redacted documents are not required to be disclosed under s 552(a) or are exempt from disclosure under s 552(b). See, e.g., Computer Profes- sionals for Social Responsibility v. United States Secret Serv., 72 F.3d 897, 902 (D.C. Cir. 1996); Gallant v. NLRB, 26 F.3d 168, 171 (D.C. Cir. 1994). We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. See Spirko v. United States Postal Serv., 147 F.3d 992, 998 (D.C. Cir. 1998); Nation Magazine v. United States Customs Serv., 71 F.3d 885, 889 (D.C. Cir. 1995).
The government withheld or redacted numerous documents under exemption 7(D), which protects law enforcement infor- mation obtained from sources who received an express or implied assurance of confidentiality. See Campbell v. United States Dep't of Justice, 164 F.3d 20, 34 (D.C. Cir. 1998). The question posed in exemption 7(D) cases "is not whether the requested document is of the type that the agency usually treats as confidential, but whether the particular source spoke with an understanding that the communication would remain confidential." United States Dep't of Justice v. Landano, 508 U.S. 165, 172 (1993). Landano rejected the government's suggestion that assurances of confidentiality are "inherently implicit" when somebody provides information to a federal law enforcement agency. See 508 U.S. at 174-78.
In this case, the government's justifications for withholding or redacting certain documents under exemption 7(D) fall short of the particularized justification Landano requires. The government's declarations do not sufficiently detail cer- tain express assurances of confidentiality and do not ade- quately explain implied assurances of confidentiality for infor- mation received after 1977.
The government employed a coding system to correlate claims of exemption on responsive documents to the justifica- tions in its declarations. It identified seven exemption 7(D) categories using the notations (b)(7)(D)-1, (b)(7)(D)-2, and so on through (b)(7)(D)-7. See Joint Appendix 43-44. Billing- ton challenges four of these categories: (b)(7)(D)-3 ("name and information provided by source with an expressed prom- ise of confidentiality"), (b)(7)(D)-4 ("name, identifying data and information provided with an implied promise of confi- dentiality"), (b)(7)(D)-5 ("information provided by non-federal law enforcement agencies under an implied promise of confi- dentiality"), and (b)(7)(D)-7 ("name of a foreign government agency who has an expressed promise of confidentiality"). See Joint Appendix 43-44.
The government's declarations justifying exemptions coded (b)(7)(D)-3 do not "present 'probative evidence that the source did in fact receive an express grant of confidentiality'." See Campbell v. United States Dep't of Justice, 164 F.3d 20, 34 (D.C. Cir. 1998). The FBI's August 29, 1997, declarations supporting the (b)(7)(D)-3 redactions state that "this informa- tion was received with the explicit understanding that it would be held in the strictest confidence. It is obvious from the released information that these sources warrant confiden- tiality." Joint Appendix 55. This may be obvious to the affiant, but it is not obvious to us. This bald assertion that express assurances were given amounts to little more than recitation of the statutory standard, which we have held is insufficient. See Campbell, 164 F.3d at 30 ("the affidavits must show, with reasonable specificity, why the documents fall within the exemption. The affidavits will not suffice if the agency's claims are conclusory, merely reciting statutory standards, or if they are too vague or sweeping."); King v.
United States Dep't of Justice, 830 F.2d 210, 219 (D.C. Cir. 1987). The declaration goes on to state that "the manner in which the FBI actually obtains information from these sources is also demonstrative of the express promise of confidentiality under which it was received. The information is often received at times and at locations which guarantee the contact will not be noticed." Joint Appendix 56. The circumstances under which the FBI receives information might support a finding of an implied assurance of confiden- tiality, but they do not demonstrate the oral or written act required for an express assurance of confidentiality. Cf. Landano, 508 U.S. at 179 (suggesting "generic circumstances in which an implied assurance of confidentiality fairly can be inferred").
__________ 4 Billington has withdrawn her challenge to documents that state a source received an express assurance of confidentiality. See Appellant's Reply Brief at 16.
Billington also attacks redactions based on an implied assurance of confidentiality coded (b)(7)(D)-4 and (b)(7)(D)-5. The character of the crime and the source's relation to it may support an inference that the source provided information under an implied assurance of confidentiality. See Landano, 508 U.S. at 179. The FBI's March 11, 1998, declaration and attached exhibits indicate that law enforcement sources would not have cooperated absent an implied assurance of confiden- tiality. They amply document the NCLC's violent tendencies and appetite for vengeance. See Joint Appendix Under Seal 41-43 and Exhibit 1.
The government's documentation primarily concerns the period before 1978. As Billington points out, the FBI itself recognized that the NCLC in the late 1970s publicly disa- vowed violence in favor of seeking change through the politi- cal process. Two FBI documents dated July and September 1977 report the change in organizational focus, note the absence of recent violent incidents associated with the NCLC, and recommend closure of investigations into the NCLC. According to Billington, the FBI's recognition of a reincarnat- ed NCLC indicates that FBI sources after 1977 might have cooperated without an implied assurance of confidentiality.
__________ foreign governments) withholdings. The FBI's March 11, 1998, and October 29, 1998, declarations adequately document the giving of express assurances of confidentiality to the relevant foreign agen- cies.
Billington also claims that declarations provided by the Department of State and the Internal Revenue Service are inadequate because they contain insufficient segregability analysis. We agree. Under FOIA, "any reasonably segrega- ble portion of a record shall be provided to any person requesting such record after deletion of the portions which are exempt under this subsection." 5 U.S.C. s 552(b). This segregability requirement limits claims of exemption to dis- crete units of information; to withhold an entire document, all units of information in that document must fall within a statutory exemption. See Trans-Pacific Policing Agreement v. United States Customs Serv., 177 F.3d 1022, 1027 (D.C. Cir. 1999) ("It has long been a rule in this Circuit that non- exempt portions of a document must be disclosed unless they are inextricably intertwined with exempt portions."). If the parties do not address segregability, the district court must raise it sua sponte. See Trans-Pacific, 177 F.3d at 1028.
__________ 6 A couple of documents in the exhibits to the FBI's March 11, 1998, declaration (under seal) elliptically suggest the NCLC contin- ued to harass its opponents into the 1980s. One is a heavily redacted letter dated September 24, 1982, located in Exhibit II. The other is a memorandum dated February 1, 1983, located in Exhibit I, part 2.
7 We have doubts that NCLC members' participation in financial crimes in the 1980s, without more, would support an inference that sources received an implied assurance of confidentiality. Cf. Schrecker v. United States Dep't of Justice, 74 F. Supp. 2d 26, 35 (D.D.C. 1999) (passport fraud and contempt of Congress found sufficiently serious to infer confidentiality).
mand for a finding in this regard. The court also received an in camera declaration, which Billington correctly notes is disfavored. See Armstrong v. Executive Office of the Presi- dent, 97 F.3d 575, 580-81 (D.C. Cir. 1996) ("Case law in this Circuit is clear that when a district court uses an in camera affidavit, it must both make its reasons for doing so clear and make as much as possible of the in camera submission available to the opposing party."). Because the Service's public declaration is sufficient in all respects except segrega- bility, we need not decide the propriety of the in camera declaration.
The State Department withheld a 14-page document con- taining notes from an interview in its entirety and released a one-page document with a couple of lines redacted. The district court initially found the Department's declaration inadequate to support the Department's exemption 6 claim and ordered an in camera review of the documents. See Billington I, 11 F. Supp. 2d at 71-72. In Billington II, the district court made no written findings regarding the in camera review. In addition, the Department's declaration appears inadequate to support withholding the entire 14-page document. It may turn out that no further meaningful segregation of information can be made, but we cannot tell from the record. We are also uncertain that personal identi- fying information so permeates the document that no part of it can be released. On remand, the district court should determine the applicability of exemption 6 to these documents and examine whether any non-exempt portions can be re- leased.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.