Opinion ID: 720526
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sufficiency of affidavits to show information was compiled for law enforcement purposes

Text: 26 To withhold a document pursuant to Exemptions 7(C) and (D), an agency must make a threshold showing that it was compiled for law enforcement purposes. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7). See Mem. op. at 2. A record is deemed to have been compiled for such a purpose if it was created or acquired in the course of an investigation related to the enforcement of federal laws, and the nexus between the investigation and one of the agency's law enforcement duties [is] based on information sufficient to support at least a colorable claim of its rationality. Pratt v. Webster, 673 F.2d 408, 420-21 (D.C.Cir.1982) (internal quotation marks omitted). [L]ess exacting proof  of a legitimate law enforcement purpose will be required of law enforcement agencies such as the FBI. Id. at 418 & n. 25. Nevertheless, the agency's basis for the claimed connection between the object of the investigation and the asserted law enforcement duty cannot be pretextual or wholly unbelievable. Id. at 421. 27 If the agency demonstrates that there was a legitimate basis for the investigation, the burden shifts to the party requesting the documents to produce evidence that the asserted law enforcement rationale was merely pretextual. Doe v. FBI, 936 F.2d 1346, 1354 (D.C.Cir.1991). [T]he mere existence of a plausible criminal investigatory reason to investigate would not protect the files of an inquiry explicitly conducted, for example, for [318 U.S.App.D.C. 235] purposes of harassment. Shaw v. FBI, 749 F.2d 58, 63 (D.C.Cir.1984) (Scalia, J.). 28 The district court concluded that (1) the affidavits submitted by the special agents proved that the investigation was rationally related to the FBI's law enforcement duties, and (2) appellants' allegations that the investigation was intended to retaliate against them were based upon mere speculation. See Mem. op. at 2-3. 29 We begin by inquiring whether the FBI affidavits are sufficiently detailed to allow the district court to determine that there was a rational basis for the investigation. We observe that the only specific fact cited in the affidavits to justify the investigation is the filing of the August 6 motion to disqualify the Eleventh Circuit. Appellants argue, and we agree, that the filing of a non-fraudulent pleading cannot, taken alone, form the basis for a legitimate obstruction of justice investigation. See United States v. Hylton, 710 F.2d 1106, 1111-12 (5th Cir.1983) (filing of a factually accurate, non-fraudulent criminal complaint against federal agents protected by the First Amendment's right to petition for redress of grievances). At oral argument, counsel for the FBI essentially conceded that the motion for dismissal could not provide the sole basis for an obstruction of justice investigation. Nonetheless, the Bureau draws our attention to the declaration of Special Agent Lipkey which provides, in relevant part: 30 This investigation into possible obstruction of justice was not initiated by the mere filing of a motion challenging the impartiality of a judge.... Rather, certain events occurred which prompted the complainant to contact the FBI. The FBI cannot further describe the basis for its law enforcement investigation, and the nexus between plaintiffs and a possible violation of federal law, without the danger of revealing the identity of a confidential source or confidential information received from a confidential source. 31 Declaration of FBI Special Agent Lloyd A. Lipkey dated Nov. 10, 1993 (Lipkey Declaration), p 5 (emphasis added). The FBI argues that the motion to disqualify, together with the certain events referred to by Lipkey, provided a rational basis for the investigation of Quinon and others. Accordingly, it maintains, the Lipkey Declaration remedied the defect and obviated the need for an in camera review. 32 We disagree. The affidavits filed by the FBI fail to supply facts that would justify an obstruction of justice investigation; rather, they simply allude to certain events, which they fail to describe or characterize, that allegedly supplied the basis for one. Compare Davin v. Department of Justice, 60 F.3d 1043, 1056-57 (3d Cir.1995) (on the record before us, the government must allege additional specific facts that demonstrate the agency was gathering information with the good faith belief that the subject may violate or has violated federal law) (emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted) with Brinton v. Department of State, 636 F.2d 600, 606 (D.C.Cir.1980) (affidavits made a detailed showing of the applicability of the asserted FOIA exemption, and there was thus no need for in camera review). 33 As noted above, where an agency's affidavits merely state in conclusory terms that documents are exempt from disclosure, an in camera review is necessary. See, e.g., Carter, 830 F.2d at 392-93. To allow the FBI to satisfy the Pratt requirement with a vague reference to other events would render that requirement a virtual nullity. Indeed, the FBI's cryptic allusion to certain events is especially problematic in this case. If AUSA Mueller's answer to the August 6 motion to disqualify the Eleventh Circuit is any indication, the other events may be nothing more sinister than criticisms of Rule 46. Taken together with the motion for dismissal, such events would provide a highly dubious basis for an obstruction of justice investigation. 34 The FBI asserts it could not be more specific without revealing a confidential source. See Lipkey Declaration p 5 ([t]he FBI cannot further describe the basis for its law enforcement investigation). This concession underscores the need for an in camera review of the documents to evaluate the FBI's basis for the investigation. As we stated in Simon v. Department of Justice, 980 F.2d 782 (D.C.Cir.1992):[318 U.S.App.D.C. 236] In [the] unusual circumstance, where the agency cannot describe the document fully enough to show that it is exempt from disclosure without in the course of doing so disclosing the very information that warrants exemption, the solution is for the court to review the document in camera. 35 Id. at 784. 36 Because the FBI affidavits are insufficiently detailed to demonstrate that there was a legitimate basis for the investigation, we need not inquire whether the affidavits also show that the claimed law enforcement rationale was not merely pretextual. We do note, however, that other discretionary factors also weigh in favor of in camera review. First of all, the FBI files contain only 77 pages of documents that relate to the investigation; therefore, in camera review will not impose an onerous burden upon the trial court. Moreover, the dispute over the applicability of the asserted FOIA exemptions centers on the contents of the withheld documents; an in camera review will presumably shed light on whether there truly was a legitimate purpose to the investigation. Finally, the FBI itself had proposed an in camera inspection to the district court; accordingly, there need be no concern that such inspection will involve judicial intrusion into the activities of the Executive Branch. Allen, 636 F.2d at 1298-99. 37