Opinion ID: 495212
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Qualifying investigation

Text: 29 In discussing the threshold exemption 7 requirement, we noted that the requirement of an investigation was no longer a component of exemption 7's threshold. It remains, however, a predicate of exemption under the second clause of paragraph (D). Moreover, a qualifying FBI investigation must not merely relate to law enforcement; it must be of either a criminal or national security intelligence nature. 5 30 Apart from the latter requirements, the search for a qualifying investigation follows the course of the threshold exemption 7 inquiry that Pratt developed before the 1986 amendments obviated the investigation requirement, see Shaw, 749 F.2d at 63: 31 [T]he agency must identify a particular individual or a particular incident as the object of its investigation and the connection between that individual or incident and a possible security risk or violation of federal law. 32 Id. (quoting Pratt, 673 F.2d at 420). 33 We have already determined above that the FBI's compilation was for law enforcement purposes. The laws in question partook of the necessary criminal or national security features. Thus all that remains is to resolve whether the information in each category was gathered pursuant to an investigation, within the meaning of exemption 7(D). 34 Like its derivative investigatory (which appeared in the old version of the exemption 7 threshold), investigation is an expansive term. Both are so expansive that we have, more often than not, understood them to impose little substantive limitation on the exemption independent of the finding of a qualifying purpose. See, e.g., Rural Housing Alliance v. Department of Agriculture, 498 F.2d 73, 81 n. 47 (D.C.Cir.1974). And we have never read either to demand any more than that the gathering of information focused on a particular individual or a particular incident as the object, Pratt, 673 F.2d at 420, as opposed to routine matters that are ancillary to [an agency's administrative] task, Center for National Policy Review on Race & Urban Issues v. Weinberger, 502 F.2d 370, 373 (D.C.Cir.1974). See, e.g., Birch v. United States Postal Service, 803 F.2d 1206, 1210 & n. 40 (D.C.Cir.1986); Laborers' International Union v. Department of Justice, 772 F.2d 919, 920-21 (D.C.Cir.1984) (investigation may include many parties, events and possible crimes); Shaw, 749 F.2d at 63; Stern v. FBI, 737 F.2d 84, 88 (D.C.Cir.1984). 35 The information on Adamic's activities in the first and second categories discussed above was all collected pursuant to inquiries that focuse[d] with special intensity on particular persons, either Adamic himself or his contacts. Center for National Policy, 502 F.2d at 373. The inquiries in the third category focused equally intensely on a particular incident--Adamic's death. None of the inquiries was routine by any stretch of the word. 36 Appellant touts two statements of a government affiant--that [n]o investigation was conducted at [the] time of Hoover's inquiry, J.A. at 143, and that [t]he FBI did not investigate [Adamic's] death, id. at 145. Appellant reads those statements as concessions that neither the redacted contents of the Hoover memorandum nor any information in the third category was compiled in the course of an investigation within the meaning of exemption 7(D). 6 37 Even assuming such a legal conclusion could bind the government or this court, we find no such concession. The first statement quoted by appellant went on to say: 38 however, the information from the treason files indicated that Adamic associated with several individuals and organizations of investigative interest to the FBI. 39 Id. at 143. The context confirms what we have already observed: that the information withheld from the memorandum responding to Hoover's inquiry was gathered in the course of investigations--though of parties other than Adamic. Similarly, the second statement on which appellant relies immediately precedes a sentence that undermines appellant's creative reading: 40 Although the FBI received information concerning Adamic's death on several occasions during the period 1951 to 1959, including allegations of possible foreign involvement, no significant information was developed and further investigation was not considered necessary. 41 Id. at 145-46 (emphasis added). The unavoidable inference from the affiant's phrase further investigation is that the FBI had already engaged in some investigation. Moreover, the references suggest no more than that the FBI did not view itself as the primary investigator.