Source: https://id.scribd.com/document/35234469/STRUNK-v-U-S-DOS-et-al-FOIA-37-MOTION-for-Summary-Judgment-gov-uscourts-dcd-134568-37-0
Timestamp: 2019-09-20 13:52:58
Document Index: 257365984

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 171', '§ 5', '§ 552', '§ 552', '§ 552', '§ 552', '§ 552', '§ 552', '§ 552']

STRUNK v U.S. DOS, et al. (FOIA) - 37 - MOTION for Summary Judgment - gov.uscourts.dcd.134568.37.0 | Undang-Undang Kebebasan Informasi (Amerika Serikat) | Perlindungan Pabean dan Perbatasan AS
07/29/2010 37 MOTION for Summary Judgment by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Dorothy Pullo, # 2 Declaration of Alex Galovich, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Bowen, Brigham) (Entered: 07/29/2010)
simpanSimpan STRUNK v U.S. DOS, et al. (FOIA) - 37 - MOTION f... Untuk Nanti
Rule: Commission organization: Freedom of Information Act Fee Schedule; revision
Case 1:08-cv-02234-RJL Document 37 Filed 07/29/10 Page 1 of 22
Pursuant to Rule 56 of the federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants, the U.S.
Department of State and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security respectfully move for
Ann Dunham, from Defendants. The Court has previously dismissed all claims relating to
records concerning the President, leaving only the requests for records concerning Ms. Dunham
at issue. March 16, 2010 Order [Dkt. #31]. Defendants have now completed processing of these
requests and have released documents to Plaintiff, subject to appropriate withholdings under
FOIA. Accordingly, because Defendants have appropriately responded to Plaintiff’s requests,
and because there are no genuine issues in dispute, Defendants are entitled to judgment in their
favor as a matter of law. The reasons supporting this motion are set forth in the accompanying
memorandum in support. A statement of material facts as to which there is no genuine issue and
a proposed order are also attached for the Court’s consideration.
Case 1:08-cv-02234-RJL Document 37 Filed 07/29/10 Page 2 of 22
Dated: July 29, 2010 Respectfully submitted,
BRIGHAM J. BOWEN (D.C. Bar No. 981555)
Ph. (202) 514-6289
Fax (202) 616-8470
Case 1:08-cv-02234-RJL Document 37 Filed 07/29/10 Page 3 of 22
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 29th day of July, 2010, I caused a true and correct
copy of the foregoing motion to be served upon Plaintiff by first class United States mail,
postage prepaid marked for delivery to:
Christopher E. Strunk
593 Vanderbilt Ave., #281
Case 1:08-cv-02234-RJL Document 37 Filed 07/29/10 Page 4 of 22
released documents to Plaintiff, subject to appropriate withholdings under FOIA. Because
Defendants have appropriately responded to Plaintiff’s requests, and because there are no
genuine issues in dispute, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment in their favor as a matter
of law.1
Because Defendants have processed Plaintiff’s requests, Plaintiff’s motion to compel
[Dkt. #35] should be denied as moot.
Case 1:08-cv-02234-RJL Document 37 Filed 07/29/10 Page 5 of 22
Three FOIA requests submitted by Strunk are at issue in this litigation. The first, sent to
State in October 2008, requested “exit and entry records for travel outside of the USA for the
period between 1960 through 1963” relating to Ms. Dunham. Am. Compl. ¶ 12 & Ex. A (Oct.
16, 2008) (Galovich Decl. Ex. 1). The second request, submitted a month later, sought
additional records from State, including passport and travel records relating both to then-
President-Elect Barack Obama and to Dunham. Am. Compl. ¶ 17 & Ex. E (Nov. 22, 2008)
(Galovich Decl. Ex. 3). In his third request, Strunk sought the same information from U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (a component of DHS; hereinafter “CBP”) as he had previously
sought from State: passport and travel records relating to Obama and Dunham. Am. Compl. ¶ 22
& Ex. I (Dec. 25, 2008) (Pullo Decl. Ex. C).
Strunk then filed a Complaint against State on December 29, 2008. A week later (and a
mere ten days after Strunk sent his FOIA request to CBP), Strunk submitted to the Court an
Amended Complaint, which added DHS as a Defendant. Am. Compl.; see also Pl.’s Mot. for
Recons. [Dkt. #10], Strunk Aff. ¶ 2.
Shortly after Strunk submitted his Amended Complaint to the Court (but before it was
docketed),2 State provided two responses to Strunk. These responses (1) informed Strunk that
entry and exit records are maintained not by State, but by CBP; (2) provided Strunk with contact
information for that agency; and (3) informed Strunk that because Dunham is deceased, State
would conduct a search for passport applications submitted by her, but that, pursuant to
regulation, State would not search for records relating to Obama without submission of a privacy
The Amended Complaint was filed on February 10, 2009.
Case 1:08-cv-02234-RJL Document 37 Filed 07/29/10 Page 6 of 22
waiver from Obama. Galovich Decl. ¶¶ 5, 9-11 & Exs. 2, 5; see also 22 C.F.R. § 171.12(a)
(requiring FOIA requesters seeking third-party records to provide “written authorization for
access by the individual, notarized or made under penalty of perjury”).
CBP responded to Strunk’s third request on February 3, 2009. Pullo Decl. ¶ 7 & Ex. A.
In this response, CBP informed Strunk that it would not release records relating to Obama
because DHS regulations (like the DOS regulations) require privacy waivers before third-party
records can be released. Pullo Decl. ¶ 8 & Ex. A; see also 6 C.F.R. §§ 5.3, 5.21(f). In
conjunction with this response, CBP released to Strunk responsive entry/exit records relating to
Dunham. Pullo Decl. Ex. A.
Defendants moved for partial dismissal on April 23, 2009, asking the Court to dismiss all
claims regarding records concerning the President, on grounds that Plaintiff had failed to comply
with agency regulations requiring privacy waivers before requesters may seek third-party
records. The Court granted the motion on March 16, 2010. Order [Dkt. #31]. After the Court’s
Order, the remaining claims include (1) Strunk’s request to State for passport records regarding
Ms. Dunham, and (2) Strunk’s request to CBP for passport and travel records concerning Ms.
Dunham. CBP released responsive records on February 3, 2009. State released responsive
records on July 29, 2010. Because each defendant has appropriately completed processing of
Plaintiff’s FOIA requests, Defendants now request summary judgment in their favor.
I. Statutory Background And Standard Of Review.
The FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552, generally mandates disclosure, upon request, of government
records held by an agency of the federal government except to the extent such records are
Case 1:08-cv-02234-RJL Document 37 Filed 07/29/10 Page 7 of 22
protected from disclosure by one of nine exemptions. The “fundamental principle” that animates
the FOIA is “public access to Government documents.” John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp.,
493 U.S. 146, 151 (1989). “The basic purpose of FOIA is to ensure an informed citizenry, vital
to the functioning of a democratic society, needed to check against corruption and to hold the
governors accountable to the governed.” NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214,
242 (1978). At the same time, Congress recognized “that legitimate governmental and private
interests could be harmed by release of certain types of information and provided nine specific
exemptions under which disclosure could be refused.” FBI v. Abramson, 456 U.S. 615, 621
(1982); see also 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). While these exemptions are to be “narrowly construed,”
Abramson, 456 U.S. at 630, courts must not fail to give the exemptions “meaningful reach and
application,” John Doe Agency, 493 U.S. at 152. The FOIA thus “represents a balance struck by
Congress between the public’s right to know and the government’s legitimate interest in keeping
certain information confidential.” Ctr. for Nat’l Sec. Studies v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 331 F.3d
918, 925 (D.C. Cir. 2003).
Summary judgment is the procedure by which courts resolve nearly all FOIA actions.
“In order to obtain summary judgment the agency must show that it made a good faith effort to
conduct a search for the requested records, using methods which can be reasonably expected to
produce the information requested.” Oglesby v. U.S. Dep’t of the Army, 920 F.2d 57, 68 (D.C.
Cir. 1990). “There is no requirement that an agency search every record system.” Id. “[T]he
issue to be resolved is not whether there might exist any other documents possibly responsive to
the request, but rather whether the search for those documents was adequate.” Weisberg v. U.S.
Dep’t of Justice, 745 F.2d 1476, 1485 (D.C. Cir. 1984); see also Meeropol v. Meese, 790 F.2d
Case 1:08-cv-02234-RJL Document 37 Filed 07/29/10 Page 8 of 22
942, 952–53 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (“A search is not unreasonable simply because it fails to produce
all relevant material.”); Perry v. Block, 684 F.2d 121, 128 (D.C. Cir. 1982).
In evaluating the adequacy of a search, courts accord agency affidavits “a presumption of
good faith, which cannot be rebutted by ‘purely speculative claims about the existence and
discoverability of other documents.’” SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197, 1200 (D.C.
The statute does not require “meticulous documentation [of] the details of an epic search.”
Perry, 684 F.2d at 127. “[A]ffidavits that explain in reasonable detail the scope and method of
the search conducted by the agency will suffice to demonstrate compliance with the obligations
imposed by the FOIA.” Id.
To sustain its burden of justifying nondisclosure of information, see 5 U.S.C.
§ 552(a)(4)(B), the agency must provide declarations that identify the information at issue and
the bases for the exemptions claimed, see Summers v. Dep’t of Justice, 140 F.3d 1077, 1080
(D.C. Cir. 1998). Courts review de novo the agency’s use of a FOIA exemption to withhold
documents. Wolf v. CIA, 473 F.3d 370, 374 (D.C. Cir. 2007). “[S]ummary judgment is
warranted on the basis of agency affidavits when the affidavits describe the justifications for
nondisclosure with reasonably specific detail ... and are not controverted by either contrary
evidence in the record nor by evidence of agency bad faith.” Wolf, 473 F.3d at 374 (internal
quotation marks omitted) (omission in original). “Ultimately, an agency’s justification for
invoking a FOIA exemption is sufficient if it appears ‘logical’ or ‘plausible.’” Id. at 374–75.
Case 1:08-cv-02234-RJL Document 37 Filed 07/29/10 Page 9 of 22
II. State And CBP Conducted Adequate Searches For Responsive Documents.
Defendants’ searches for records responsive to Plaintiff’s requests were reasonably
calculated to uncover all documents responsive to the requests. As explained in the Declaration
of Alex Galovich, the Acting Director of the Office of Information Programs and Services
(“IPS”) at State, IPS determined that the Office of Passport Services would be the only office
that would reasonably be expected to maintain the records requested. Galovich Decl ¶ 14. That
office “is charged with issuing passports to U.S. citizens, and issues some 15 million passports
per year through 25 domestic agencies.” Id. The Office of Passport Services maintains the
Passport Information Electronic Records System (“PIERS”), “an electronic database that
includes the records of some 144 million passports that have been issued from 1978 to the
present.” Id. State also maintains paper records of some passport applications. Id.3
In response to Plaintiff’s request for records concerning Ms. Dunham, Passport Services
conducted numerous searches of PIERS using the names provided in Plaintiff's November 22,
2008 FOIA request, including DUNHAM, Stanley Ann; DUNHAM, Stanley Ann Obama;
OBAMA, Stanley Ann; SOETORO, Stanley Ann; SOETORO, Stanley Ann Obama; and
SUTORO, Stanley Ann Obama. Id. ¶ 15. Passport Services also used those names in
conducting numerous searches of the paper records. Id. Six responsive passport records were
As further explained in State’s written response to Strunk’s request, passport records
“typically consist of applications for United States passports and supporting evidence of United
States citizenship. Passport records do not include evidence of travel such as entrance/exit
stamps, visas, residence permits, etc., since this information is entered into the passport book
after issuance.” Galovich Decl. Ex. 6 at 1.
Case 1:08-cv-02234-RJL Document 37 Filed 07/29/10 Page 10 of 22
located. Id.4
CBP’s search for responsive records included a search of the TECS electronic database
system. Pullo Decl. ¶ 6. TECS is an overarching law enforcement information collection,
analysis, and sharing environment. TECS System of Records Notice, 73 FR 77778, 77779
(December 19, 2008). TECS is comprised of several modules that collect, maintain and screen
data, as well as conduct analysis, screening and information sharing. Id. TECS (previously
known as the Treasury Enforcement Communications System) “began capturing traveler arrivals
and departures into and out of the United States beginning in January of 1982.” Pullo Decl. ¶ 6.
Prior to 1982, paper entry documents were used, but such documents no longer exist and are no
longer archived by CBP. Id. Because the TECS database was the most likely system to have
entry and exit data pertaining to Ms. Dunham, CBP searched that system and located one page of
responsive records. Id.
Each of these searches was “reasonably expected to produce the information requested.”
Oglesby, 920 F.2d at 68. CBP and State identified the systems likely to contain relevant
documents, searched them, located responsive documents, and released them to Plaintiff. The
agency declarations demonstrate that the searches were adequate in scope and method, and
summary judgment in this regard is therefore warranted.
III. CBP Properly Withheld Records Under Applicable FOIA Exemptions.
Defendants processed the responsive records in accordance with FOIA. State made no
One application for amendment of passport submitted by Ms. Dunham made reference
to a 1965 passport application. State was unable to locate this application and explained to
Strunk that “[m]any passport applications and other non-vital records from that period were
destroyed during the 1980’s in accordance with guidance from the General Services
Administration.” Galovich Decl. Ex. 6 at 1.
Case 1:08-cv-02234-RJL Document 37 Filed 07/29/10 Page 11 of 22
withholdings. Galovich Decl. ¶ 16. CBP withheld certain information pursuant to FOIA
exemptions 2 and 7(E), as explained in detail below and in the Declaration of Dorothy Pullo.
CBP properly invoked these exemptions and processed and released all reasonably segregable
information from the responsive records.
A. CBP Processed And Released All Reasonably Segregable Information From
The Responsive Records.
As required by the FOIA, CBP has provided all “reasonably segregable” responsive
information that is not protected under a FOIA exemption. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). CBP processed
all documents to achieve maximum disclosure consistent with the access provisions of the FOIA,
and made every effort to provide plaintiff with all material in the public domain and with all
reasonably segregable portions of releasable material. See Pullo Decl. ¶¶ 19-20. No reasonably
segregable, nonexempt portions were withheld. Id. CBP indicated where any material was
withheld in the documents released to Plaintiff and provided coded categories to indicate the
nature of any information withheld. Id. All the material withheld is exempt from disclosure
pursuant to FOIA exemptions or is so intertwined with protected material that segregation is not
possible without revealing the underlying protected material. Id.
B. CBP Properly Withheld Material Related To Internal Personnel Rules And
Practices Pursuant To Exemption 2.
CBP properly withheld certain CBP internal information pursuant to FOIA Exemption 2.
Exemption 2 protects information “related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of
an agency.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(2). Exemption 2 applies to materials “used for predominantly
internal purposes.” Schiller v. NLRB, 964 F.2d 1205, 1207 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (quoting Crooker v.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms, 670 F.2d 1051, 1073 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (en banc)). This
Case 1:08-cv-02234-RJL Document 37 Filed 07/29/10 Page 12 of 22
exemption has been held to protect two types of information: (1) information the release of
which would “risk[] circumvention of agency regulations or statutes,” Crooker, 670 F.2d at
1074, and (2) “routine matters of merely internal interest,” id. at 1069; see also Founding
Church of Scientology of Washington, D.C., Inc. v. Smith, 721 F.2d 828, 830 n.4 (D.C. Cir.
1983) (exemption applies to material that “relates to trivial administrative matters of no genuine
public interest”); Schiller, 964 F.2d at 1207 (explaining “high 2” and “low 2” exemptions).
CBP withheld both “high 2” and “low 2” information. The “low 2” information withheld
consists of purely administrative markings such as record identification numbers, facsimile and
phone numbers, and computer function codes that instruct computer system users on how to
navigate their way through the system. Pullo Decl. ¶ 11. Such markings are used “for the
purposes of indexing, storing, locating, retrieving and distributing information in the CBP
databases.” Id. ¶ 12. As stated in the Pullo Declaration, access to the file and computer systems
searched here is restricted from the public; accordingly, public access to and knowledge of the
internal computer system codes could facilitate improper access to sensitive CBP records and
interfere with CBP’s ability to maintain control of its information systems. Id. Courts have
routinely upheld these kinds of withholdings. See, e.g., Durrani v. Dep’t of Justice, 607 F. Supp.
2d 77, 91 (D.D.C. 2009) (direct telephone numbers of Immigration and Customs Enforcement
agents); Asian Law Caucus v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. C 08-842, 2008 WL 5047839, at
*4 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 24, 2008) (withholding names of databases and other information that could
lead to improper accessing of Customs and Border Patrol databases); Antonelli v. BOP, 569 F.
Supp. 2d 61, 65 (D.D.C. 2008) (file number used to index and retrieve information in
investigatory files); Summers v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 517 F. Supp. 2d 231, 239 (D.D.C. 2007)
Case 1:08-cv-02234-RJL Document 37 Filed 07/29/10 Page 13 of 22
(finding that FBI file numbers and source symbol numbers were “a matter of internal
significance in which the public has no substantial interest”); Middleton v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor,
No. 06-72, 2006 WL 2666300, at *6 (E.D. Va. Sept. 15, 2006) (control identification numbers
withheld); Changzhou Laosan Group v. U.S. Customs & Border Prot. Bureau, No. 04-1919,
2005 WL 913268, at *3 (D.D.C. Apr. 20, 2005) (“computer function codes, internal file
numbers, and computer system and report identity” properly withheld as “low 2” information),
partial reconsideration granted on other grounds, 374 F. Supp. 2d 129 (D.D.C. 2005); Coleman
v. FBI, 13 F. Supp. 2d 75, 79 (D.D.C. 1998) (finding that the FBI properly withheld source
symbol numbers and file numbers used for administrative purposes under Exemption 2).
The “high 2” information withheld by CBP consists of internal matters, including
examination and inspection procedural information, internal reporting requirements, records
numbers, and instructions on how to process international travelers. Pullo Decl. ¶ 13. As
observed in the Pullo Declaration, disclosure of such information “would permit potential
violators” to “develop countermeasures to evade detection, inspection and targeting methods.
Public awareness of this operational information would aid those who seek to circumvent CBP
operations and thus harm the agency’s ability to enforce the laws of the U.S.” Id. This is
precisely the kind of information which Exemption 2 is designed to protect, and was properly
withheld here. See, e.g., Durrani, 607 F. Supp. 2d at 91; Moayedi v. U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, 510 F. Supp. 2d 73, 84-85 (D.D.C. 2007) (CBP detention and interrogation
C. CBP Properly Withheld Law Enforcement Information Pursuant To
CBP also withheld law enforcement materials pursuant to FOIA Exemption 7. (This
Case 1:08-cv-02234-RJL Document 37 Filed 07/29/10 Page 14 of 22
information was also withheld pursuant to Exemption 2.) Exemption 7 permits withholding of
“records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes” meeting certain specified
criteria. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7). “In assessing whether records are compiled for law enforcement
purposes, ... the focus is on how and under what circumstances the requested files were
compiled, and ‘whether the files sought relate to anything that can fairly be characterized as an
enforcement proceeding.’” Jefferson v. Dep’t of Justice, 284 F.3d 172, 176–77 (D.C. Cir. 2002)
(citations omitted). The range of law enforcement purposes falling within the scope of
Exemption 7 includes government national security and counterterrorism activities. See, e.g.,
Ctr. for Nat’l Sec. Studies v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 331 F.3d 918, 926 (D.C. Cir. 2003); Kidder v.
FBI, 517 F. Supp. 2d 17, 27 (D.D.C. 2007). Furthermore, CBP, as a law enforcement agency, is
entitled to deference when it identifies material as having been compiled for law enforcement
purposes under Exemption 7. See Barnard v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 598 F. Supp. 2d 1, 15
(D.D.C. 2009).
The information withheld here was compiled for law enforcement purposes within the
meaning of Exemption 7, because, as explained in the Pullo Declaration, the information
responsive to Plaintiff’s requests concerns “inspection procedures, internal reporting
requirements and instructions on how to process international travelers,” information directly
bearing on CBP’s law-enforcement mission and activities. Pullo Decl. ¶ 18. Specifically, this
information is properly withheld pursuant to Exemption 7(E). This exemption permits
withholding of information compiled for law enforcement purposes if release of the information
“would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions,
or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such
Case 1:08-cv-02234-RJL Document 37 Filed 07/29/10 Page 15 of 22
disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law.” 5 U.S.C.
§ 552(b)(7)(E). Congress intended that Exemption 7(E) protect from disclosure techniques and
procedures used to prevent and protect against crimes, as well as techniques and procedures used
to investigate crimes after they have been committed. See, e.g., PHE, Inc. v. Dep’t of Justice,
983 F.2d 248, 250–51 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (holding that portions of FBI manual describing patterns
of violations, investigative techniques, and sources of information available to investigators were
protected by Exemption 7(E)). Exemption 7(E) does not require a particular determination of
harm that would result from disclosure of specific records or information; rather, the exemption
categorically protects information related to law enforcement techniques. See Smith v. Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms, 977 F. Supp. 496, 501 (D.D.C. 1997) (“Exemption 7(E) provides
categorical protection to information related to law enforcement techniques.”); Fisher v. U.S.
Dep’t of Justice, 772 F. Supp. 7, 12 n.9 (D.D.C. 1991), aff’d, 968 F.2d 92 (D.C. Cir. 1992). The
withholdings here fall squarely within the exemption and were proper. Pullo Decl. ¶¶ 15-18; see
also Barnard, 598 F. Supp. 2d at 22 (upholding CBP withholding of examination and inspection
procedures, internal reporting requirements and instructions on how to process international
Defendants’ releases and withholdings in response to Plaintiff’s FOIA requests were
proper. For each of the foregoing reasons, Defendants request summary judgment in their favor.
Case 1:08-cv-02234-RJL Document 37 Filed 07/29/10 Page 16 of 22
Case 1:08-cv-02234-RJL Document 37 Filed 07/29/10 Page 17 of 22
As required by LCvR 7.1(h), and in support of the Motion for Summary Judgment filed
on behalf the Department of State (“State”) and the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”),
Defendants hereby make the following statement of material facts as to which there is no
1. By letter dated October 16, 2008, Plaintiff submitted a Freedom of Information Act
(“FOIA”) request to State. Galovich Decl. Ex. 1.
2. On November 22, 2008, Plaintiff submitted an online FOIA request to State. Galovich
Decl. Ex. 3.
3. By letter dated December 25, 2008, Plaintiff submitted a FOIA request to U.S. Customs
and Border Protection. Pullo Decl. Ex. C.
Case 1:08-cv-02234-RJL Document 37 Filed 07/29/10 Page 18 of 22
4. By letter dated January 12, 2009, State issued a response to Plaintiff’s October 16 FOIA
request, stating that “[b]ased on the information contained in your communications, it
appears that the records you seek are with the Homeland Security’s Bureau of Customs
and Border Protection.” Galovich Decl. Ex. 2.
5. By separate letter dated January 12, 2009, State issued a response to Plaintiff’s November
22 FOIA request. In this response, State informed Plaintiff that, with respect to Stanley
Ann Dunham, State would process Plaintiff’s request with respect to applications for U.S.
passports. State also informed plaintiff that State would not reasonably maintain any
records of the sort listed in various categories described by Plaintiff, and that State would
not search for records concerning then-President-Elect Obama without a third-party
privacy waiver from Obama. State also sought clarification from Plaintiff regarding
various other categories of records in Plaintiff’s request. Galovich Decl. Ex. 5.
6. By letter dated February 3, 2009, CBP issued a response to Plaintiff’s December 25, 2008
FOIA request. In this response, CBP informed Strunk that it would not release records
relating to Obama because DHS regulations require privacy waivers before third-party
records can be released. In conjunction with this response, CBP released to Strunk
responsive entry/exit records relating to Dunham. Pullo Decl. Ex. A.
7. CBP’s search for responsive records relating to Dunham consisted of a search of the
TECS electronic database system, which includes traveler arrivals and departures into
and out of the United States from January 1982 onward. Pullo Decl. ¶ 6.
8. Prior to January 1982, paper entry documents were used. Such documents no longer
exist and are no longer archived. Pullo Decl. ¶ 6.
Case 1:08-cv-02234-RJL Document 37 Filed 07/29/10 Page 19 of 22
9. In connection with this release of records, CBP withheld information pursuant to FOIA
Exemptions 2 and 7(E). Pullo Decl. ¶ 7 & Ex. A.
10. The “low 2” information withheld by CBP included purely administrative markings such
as record identification numbers, facsimile and phone numbers, and computer function
codes that instruct computer system users on how to navigate their way through the
system. Pullo Decl. ¶ 11.
11. Access to these file and computer systems is restricted from the public; accordingly,
public access to and knowledge of the internal computer system codes could facilitate
improper access to sensitive CBP records and interfere with CBP’s ability to maintain
control of its information systems. Pullo Decl. ¶ 12.
12. The “high 2” information withheld by CBP included internal matters, including
examination and inspection procedural information, internal reporting requirements,
records numbers, and instructions on how to process international travelers. Pullo Decl.
13. Disclosure of such information would permit potential violators to develop
countermeasures to evade detection, inspection and targeting methods. Public awareness
of this operational information would aid those who seek to circumvent CBP operations
and harm the agency’s ability to enforce the laws of the U.S. Pullo Decl. ¶ 13.
14. The information withheld by CBP pursuant to Exemption 7(E) concerned inspection
procedures, internal reporting requirements and instructions on how to process
international travelers, information directly bearing on CBP’s law-enforcement mission
and activities. Pullo Decl. ¶ 18.
Case 1:08-cv-02234-RJL Document 37 Filed 07/29/10 Page 20 of 22
15. Upon evaluation of Plaintiff’s FOIA request (200807238), State’s Office of Information
Programs and Services (“IPS”) determined that the Office of Passport Services would be
the only office that would reasonably be expected to maintain the records requested.
Galovich Decl. ¶ 14.
16. Passport Services is charged with issuing passports to U.S. citizens, and issues some 15
million passports per year through 25 domestic agencies. Galovich Decl. ¶ 14.
17. The Passport Information Electronic Records System (“PIERS”) is an electronic database
that includes the records of some 144 million passports that have been issued from 1978
to the present. The Department of State also maintains paper records of some passport
applications. Galovich Decl. ¶ 14.
18. Passport Services conducted numerous searches of PIERS using the names DUNHAM,
Stanley Ann; SOETORO, Stanley Ann; and, SUTORO, Stanley Ann. Passport Services
also conducted numerous searches of the paper records using the names provided in
Plaintiff’s November 22, 2008 FOIA request, viz. DUNHAM, Stanley Ann; DUNHAM,
Stanley Ann Obama; OBAMA, Stanley Ann; SOETORO, Stanley Ann; SOETORO,
Stanley Ann Obama; and SUTORO, Stanley Ann Obama. Galovich Decl. ¶ 15.
19. As a result of these repeated searches of all records systems reasonably likely to contain
the requested records, six responsive passport records were located. Galovich Decl. ¶ 15.
20. No record of a 1965 passport application referenced in an application for amendment of
passport in the name of Stanley Ann Dunham was located. Galovich Decl. ¶ 15.
21. Many passport applications and other non-vital records from that period were destroyed
during the 1980s in accordance with guidance from the General Services Administration.
Galovich Decl. ¶ 12 & Ex. 7.
Case 1:08-cv-02234-RJL Document 37 Filed 07/29/10 Page 21 of 22
22. By letter dated July 29, 2010, State issued a final response to Plaintiff’s November 22,
2008 FOIA request. In this response, State informed Plaintiff that State had completed its
search for records concerning Dunham responsive to Plaintiff’s request, and that the
search resulted in the retrieval of six responsive documents. Galovich Decl. ¶ 12 & Ex.
23. In this July 29 letter, State also informed Plaintiff that passport records maintained by
State typically consist of applications for United States passports and supporting evidence
of United States citizenship but do not include evidence of travel such as entrance/exit
stamps, visas, residence permits, etc., since this information is entered into the passport
book after issuance. Galovich Decl. ¶ 12 & Ex. 6.
24. In this letter, State also informed Plaintiff that a 1965 Dunham passport application
referenced in another Dunham passport application could not be located, and that many
passport applications and other non-vital records from that period were destroyed during
the 1980s in accordance with guidance from the General Services Administration.
Galovich Decl. ¶ 12 & Exs. 6, 7.
Case 1:08-cv-02234-RJL Document 37 Filed 07/29/10 Page 22 of 22
Dokumen Serupa dengan STRUNK v U.S. DOS, et al. (FOIA) - 37 - MOTION for Summary Judgment - gov.uscourts.dcd.134568.37.0