Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/35234469/STRUNK-v-U-S-DOS-et-al-FOIA-37-MOTION-for-Summary-Judgment-gov-uscourts-dcd-134568-37-0
Timestamp: 2017-04-29 14:16:49
Document Index: 751390220

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 | Freedom Of Information Act (United States)
ScribdBrowseInterestsCareer & MoneyPersonal GrowthPolitics & Current AffairsScience & TechHealth & FitnessLifestyleEntertainmentBiographies & HistoryFictionBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinSTRUNK v U.S. DOS, et al. (FOIA) - 37 - MOTION for Summary Judgment - gov.uscourts.dcd.134568.37.0Uploaded by Jack RyanFreedom Of Information Act (United States)U.S. Customs And Border ProtectionPassportPlaintiffSummary Judgment0.0 (0)DownloadEmbedDescription: 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 Tex...View More07/29/2010 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)Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentCase 1:08-cv-02234-RJL Document 37Filed 07/29/10 Page 1 of 22
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________ CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, ) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND ) SECURITY, ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________)
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 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 summary judgment. By this Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) action, pro se Plaintiff Christopher Strunk seeks passport and travel records relating to President Barack Obama and his mother, Stanley 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
Respectfully submitted, TONY WEST Assistant Attorney General RONALD C. MACHEN, JR. United States Attorney ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO (D.C. Bar No. 418925) Deputy Branch Director s/ Brigham J. Bowen BRIGHAM J. BOWEN (D.C. Bar No. 981555) Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice Federal Programs Branch P.O. Box 883, 20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20044 Ph. (202) 514-6289 Fax (202) 616-8470 brigham.bowen@usdoj.gov Counsel for Defendants
Filed 07/29/10 Page 3 of 22
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 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 Brooklyn, NY 11238 s/ Brigham J. Bowen Brigham J. Bowen
Filed 07/29/10 Page 4 of 22
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT By this Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) action, pro se Plaintiff Christopher Strunk seeks passport and travel records relating to President Barack Obama and his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, from the Department of State (“State”) and the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”). The Court has previously dismissed all claims relating to records concerning the President, leaving only the requests for records concerning Ms. Dunham at issue. See 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. 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.
Filed 07/29/10 Page 5 of 22
BACKGROUND 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 thenPresident-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. 2
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. ARGUMENT 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
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
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. Cir. 1991) (quoting Ground Saucer Watch, Inc. v. CIA, 692 F.2d 770, 771 (D.C. Cir. 1981)). 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.
Filed 07/29/10 Page 9 of 22
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. 6
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. 7
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
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)
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 procedures). C. CBP Properly Withheld Law Enforcement Information Pursuant To Exemption 7.
CBP also withheld law enforcement materials pursuant to FOIA Exemption 7. (This 10
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
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 travelers). CONCLUSION 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.
Respectfully submitted, TONY WEST Assistant Attorney General 12
Filed 07/29/10 Page 16 of 22
RONALD C. MACHEN, JR. United States Attorney ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO (D.C. Bar No. 418925) Deputy Branch Director s/ Brigham J. Bowen BRIGHAM J. BOWEN (D.C. Bar No. 981555) Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice Federal Programs Branch P.O. Box 883, 20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20044 Ph. (202) 514-6289 Fax (202) 616-8470 brigham.bowen@usdoj.gov Counsel for Defendants
Filed 07/29/10 Page 17 of 22
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________ CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, ) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND ) SECURITY, ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________)
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AS TO WHICH THERE IS NO GENUINE ISSUE 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 genuine issue. PLAINTIFF’S FOIA REQUESTS 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.
Filed 07/29/10 Page 18 of 22
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES 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.
Filed 07/29/10 Page 19 of 22
In connection with this release of records, CBP withheld information pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 2 and 7(E). Pullo Decl. ¶ 7 & Ex. A.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Filed 07/29/10 Page 20 of 22
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Filed 07/29/10 Page 21 of 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. 6.
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.
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.
Respectfully submitted, TONY WEST Assistant Attorney General RONALD C. MACHEN, JR. United States Attorney ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO (D.C. Bar No. 418925) Deputy Branch Director s/ Brigham J. Bowen BRIGHAM J. BOWEN (D.C. Bar No. 981555) Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice
Filed 07/29/10 Page 22 of 22
Federal Programs Branch P.O. Box 883, 20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20044 Ph. (202) 514-6289 Fax (202) 616-8470 brigham.bowen@usdoj.gov Counsel for Defendants
Documents Similar To STRUNK v U.S. DOS, et al. (FOIA) - 37 - MOTION for Summary Judgment - gov.uscourts.dcd.134568.37.0Skip carouselCREW v. Department of EducationUS District Court State FOIA ComplaintSocial SecurityRobert B. Clarkson v. Internal Revenue Service and John Henderson, District Director, 678 F.2d 1368, 11th Cir. (1982)Jeffrey Kramer Rikers Island 2015 Response Letter and RecordsRuleDaniel Nix v. United States, 572 F.2d 998, 4th Cir. (1978)CREWNoticeHarrison Wellford v. Clifford L. Hardin, Individually, and as Secretary of Agriculture, 444 F.2d 21, 4th Cir. (1971)2nd_IYFCamp_Application_Form1(1)swb_counternarcotics_strategy11Proposed RuleBenchmark Newsletter Volume1 Issue4-international shippingAge_Verification_and_Model_Release_FormEasy Singapore Document of IdentityNoticeNoticeT5 B64 GAO Visa Docs 3 of 6 Fdr- Jun 02 DOS Cable- Problem w UAE Passports 575 Implementing the President's Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements PoliciesUnmanned Aircraft System
MQ-9 Predator BAssessment - CBOE Failure to Assign GOP Election Judges - Especially in Minority Wards - 2-24 CBOE List With GOP Chairman Lists - Public VersionAhmedabad RPO Case AnalysisT5 B65 GAO Visa Docs 6 of 6 Fdr- Mar 02 DOS Cable- Revised Regulation on Automatic Re Validations 856Dec 22 Updatephishing may be human traffickingCREWukvisarequirementsLetter to New Haven Mayor DeStefano about the Public Safety Risks of Releasing Names of the Cardholders of the Elm City Resident Card (Feb. 15, 2008)Documents About Freedom Of Information Act (United States)Skip carousel2161 docsMarine Corps analysis of female integrationFCC FOIAGardasil Complaint 2-28-2013Holder Travel Records CombinedSchoenberg vs. FBI - Complaint - FOIA LawsuitHillary Clinton's Libya EmailsFriendly Fire Airstrike in the Vicinity of Arghandab, Afghanistan, 9 Jun 14Wu-Tang Clan court filingShow Temp (12)State OIG FOIA Request104904507-TSA-Complaints-2010BEPshreddedCurrency 2010 2012-2015Judicial Watch v Dept of State Social Networking FOIA Complaint FinalEscobar LetterMalia MexicoFCC Net Neutrality White HouseJustice Department Reply brief 7.29.16Short-term Rental Regulation and Affordable Housing Protection Act of 20171488 09032013Harris Letter & ResponseCREW v. DHSResponsive Documents - CREWClinton White House Conspiracy memoResponsive DocumentStamped ComplaintFOIAVAIQ 7693334 -- VBA Letter 20-16-01 - EFolder AccessResponsive Documents - CREWMore From Jack RyanSkip carouselUSA v Arpaio #136 MINUTES of Proceeding Held Apr. 12, 2017USA v Arpaio #137.1 (APPEAL) Arpaio Petition for Writ of MandamusUSA v Arpaio #137 Arpaio Notice of Filing of Petition for Writ of MandamusMelendres #2008 DOJ Response Re Arpaio Et Al StandingMelendres #2009 Plaintiffs Response Re Arpaio Et Al StandingUSA v Arpaio #135 Arpaio Amended Witness ListUSA v Arpaio #134 Motion for Stay to Allow Filing of Petition for Writ of MandamusUSA v Arpaio #133 Arpaio Motion for Reconsideration of 132 OrderUSA v Arpaio #131 Arpaio Withdrawal of 97 Motion to Preclude Casey TestimonyUSA v Arpaio #132 ORDER Denying Arpaio 130 Motion to DismissUSA v Arpaio #130 Arpaio Motion to DismissUSA v Arpaio #129 Arpaio Fourth Motion to ContinueUSA v Arpaio #115 Jones Skelton Motion to WithdrawUSA v Arpaio #123 Arpaio Reply Re Motion to Exclude Victim TestimonyUSA v Arpaio #124 Arpaio REPLY Re Motion to Stay Proceedings (Pending Snow Recusal Filings)USA v Arpaio #118 Arpaio Witness ListUSA v Arpaio #121 Arpaio Reply Re Motion for Continuance or to Exclude Docs Produced After Mar 1USA v Arpaio #125 Arpaio REPLY Re Motion to Exclude Campaign StatementsUSA v Arpaio #119 Arpaio Exhibit ListUSA v Arpaio #120 ORDER Re Motion to Withdraw HearingUSA v Arpaio #126 Minutes of Proceeding 4-6-2017USA v Arpaio #114 Arpaio Notice of ErrataUSA v Arpaio #113 USA Opp to Motion to Clarify, Voluntariness HearingUSA v Arpaio #112 ORDER Denying Motion to Continue TrialDM v Risen Appeal - Montgomery Brief filed Jan. 27, 2017DM v Risen Appeal - Appellee Brief filed Mar. 27, 2017USA v Arpaio #108 - USA Opp to Motion to Exclude Campaign SpeechUSA v Arpaio #109 - USA Opp to Motion to Exclude Victim TestimonyUSA v Arpaio #107 - USA Opp to Motion to Continue-ExcludeUSA v Arpaio #110 - USA Opp to Motion to Stay (Recusal)