Opinion ID: 8312392
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: 273B Reliance on FOIA Exemptions

Text: To prevail on a summary judgment motion in a FOIA case, a defending agency must demonstrate that any withheld information is exempt from disclosure, and that the agency segregated non-exempt materials. See 5 U.S.C. § 552 (a)(4)(B). To meet this standard, agencies may provide a relatively detailed justification through the submission of an index of documents, known as a Vaughn Index, sufficiently detailed affidavits or declarations, or both. 2 James Madison Project v. U.S. Dep't of Justice , 208 F.Supp.3d 265 , 285 (D.D.C. 2016) (quoting Ctr. for Int'l Envtl. Law v.U.S. Trade Representative , 237 F.Supp.2d 17 , 22 (D.D.C. 2002) ). Only 30 pages of records have been withheld from Ms. Agrama, constituting four separate documents. See Valvardi Decl. ¶ 15a-d. Ms. Agrama argues that these records were improperly withheld, and further that the IRS description of them in the Valvardi Declaration is insufficiently detailed to meet its disclosure obligations. IRS asserts that all four records are entirely exempt from disclosure under Exemption 7(A). 3 Exemption 7(A) allows agencies to withhold records which could reasonably be expected to interfere with law enforcement proceedings. 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(7)(A). Exemption 7(A) is intended to prevent disclosures which might prematurely reveal the government's cases in courts, its evidence and strategies, or the nature, scope, and focus of investigations. Maydak v. U.S. Dep't of Justice , 218 F.3d 760 , 762 (D.C. Cir. 2000). An agency relying on Exemption 7 must show that disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause harm to a pending investigation. See NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co. , 437 U.S. 214 , 224, 98 S.Ct. 2311 , 57 L.Ed.2d 159 (1978) ; see also Campbell v. HHS , 682 F.2d 256 , 259 (D.C. Cir. 1982). Exemption 7(A) permits the government to withhold 'documents related to an ongoing investigation from the investigation's target because disclosure would reveal the scope and direction of the investigation and could allow the target to destroy or alter evidence, fabricate fraudulent alibis, and intimidate witnesses.'  EduCap Inc. v. IRS , No. 07-cv-2106, 2009 WL 416428 at  (D.D.C. Feb. 18, 2009) (quoting North v. Walsh , 881 F.2d 1088 , 1098 (D.C. Cir.1989) ). Under exemption 7(A) the government is not required to make a specific factual showing with respect to each withheld document that disclosure would actually interfere with a particular enforcement proceeding. Id. (citing Barney v. IRS , 618 F.2d 1268 , 1273 (8th Cir. 1980) ; see also Robbins Tire , 437 U.S. at 234-35 , 98 S.Ct. 2311 . Rather, federal courts may make generic determinations that, 'with respect to particular kinds of enforcement proceedings, disclosure of particular kinds of investigatory records while a case is pending would generally interfere with enforcement proceedings.'  As this precedent makes clear, Exemption 7(A) is designed to allow law enforcement agencies to avoid premature disclosure of their evidence. It is a wide-ranging exemption that is intended to protect not only evidence contained in a record, but also its intended use in enforcement proceedings. Because of its breadth, Exemption 7(A) is limited to pending enforcement actions. See Robbins Tire , 437 U.S. at 234-35 , 98 S.Ct. 2311 . IRS tax examinations constitute law enforcement investigations, see Vento v. IRS , 714 F.Supp.2d 137 , 148 (D.D.C. 2010) ; see also EduCap , 2009 WL 416428 at  (An IRS audit is a 'law enforcement' activity for purposes of Exemption 7.). Ms. Agrama does not contest that the IRS examination of her taxes and potential penalties was currently pending at the time of the Request. She argues, however that the Chersicla Report, already released by IRS, itself identifies and substantively describes the four records withheld by the Service. Thus, she contends that IRS must either demonstrate that the four withheld records are not those identified in the Chersicla Report, or disclose them. See Pl.'s Opp'n at 12-13. This argument also fails. First, it relies solely on the fact that the Chersicla Report describes four documents and IRS withheld four documents; no further evidence exists that they are the same, and Ms. Agrama admits it may simply be a coincidence. Id. Only her speculation connects the two groups. Further, even if the documents were the same, the fact that they are described in the Chersicla Report does not invalidate reliance on an applicable FOIA Exemption by IRS. It is true that records that have entered the public domain, such as through disclosure in a public trial, may not be protected by Exemption 7(A). Cottone v. Reno , 193 F.3d 550 , 554 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (Under our public-domain doctrine, materials normally immunized from disclosure under FOIA lose their protective cloak once disclosed and preserved in a permanent public record.). However, that is not the case here; Ms. Agrama asserts only that they have been substantively described by the Chersicla Report. The burden of showing that the contested records have entered into the public domain falls on the requesting party, see id. , and Ms. Agrama has the burden of showing that there is a permanent public record of the records she seeks. Davis v. U.S. Dep't of Justice , 968 F.2d 1276 , 1280 (D.C. Cir. 1992). Even if the gist of the documents were described by the Chersicla Report, that would not be sufficient to trigger the public-domain doctrine. Ms. Agrama has not met her burden, and the government is not obligated to prove the negative. Id. It would also not mean that the government did not have a valid law enforcement interest in withholding the full documents themselves, which may contain much more information than just a summary included in another report. Ms. Agrama's argument is therefore without merit. The Court further concludes that the records have been properly withheld under Exemption 7(A), and that no Vaughn Index or more detailed declarations are necessary. Ms. Agrama is quite candid: she wants access to records related to an ongoing IRS investigation of herself in order to quash any penalties before they are assessed. IRS withheld four records on the ground that disclosing them would interfere with that investigation. This justification falls well within the boundaries of Exemption 7(A). Exemption 7(A) is intended to prevent disclosures which might prematurely reveal the government's cases  in courts, its evidence and strategies, or the nature, scope, and focus of investigations. Maydak , 218 F.3d at 762 . Disclosure of the contested documents may do harm to IRS's investigation in ways that do not relate to the substantive content possibly summarized in the Chersicla Report. Ms. Agrama's call for a Vaughn Index, or more detailed descriptions of the withheld records, is not supported by FOIA. The Court concludes, based on the public and in camera submissions by the IRS, that such further detail is unwarranted. To require further disclosure of information would destroy the purpose of the Exemption.