Date post: | 03-Jun-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | tim-cushing |
View: | 227 times |
Download: | 0 times |
of 31
8/12/2019 Occupy Houston
1/31
1
UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT
FORTHEDISTRICTOFCOLUMBIA
)RYANNOAHSHAPIRO, )
)
Plaintiff, ))
v. ) CivilActionNo. 13-595 (RMC)
U.S. DEPARTMENTOFJUSTICE,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
)
OPINION
Ryan Noah Shapiro suestheFederalBureau ofInvestigation (FBI)underthe
FreedomofInformation Act(FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, and thePrivacy Act(PA), 5 U.S.C. 552a,
to compelthereleaseofrecordsconcerning Occupy Houston,an offshootoftheprotest
movementand NewYork City encampmentknown asOccupy WallStreet. Mr. Shapiro seeks
FBIrecordsregarding Occupy Houston generally and an alleged plotby unidentified actorsto
assassinatetheleadersofOccupy Houston. FBIhasmoved to dismissorforsummary
judgment.1
TheMotion willbegranted in partand denied in part.
I. FACTS
Ryan Noah Shapiro isadoctoralcandidatein theDepartmentofScience,
Technology, and Society attheMassachusettsInstituteofTechnology. Compl. [Dkt. 1]2. In
early 2013, Mr. Shapiro sentthreeFOIA/PArequeststo FBIforrecordsconcerning Occupy
Houston, agroup ofprotestersin Houston, Texas, affiliated with theOccupy WallStreetprotest
movementthatbegan in NewYork City on September17, 2011. Id. 8-13. Mr. Shapiro
1FBIisacomponentoftheDepartmentofJustice(DOJ). WhileDOJistheproperdefendantintheinstantlitigation, theonly recordsatissuehereareFBIrecords. Foreaseofreference, this
Opinion refersto FBIasDefendant.
8/12/2019 Occupy Houston
2/31
2
explained thathisresearch and analyticalexpertise. . . [concerns]conflictsatthenexusof
American nationalsecurity, lawenforcement, and politicaldissent,and thatheplanned to
disseminate. . . urgentinformation [regarding Occupy Houston]to thepublic. Mot. to
DismissorforSumm. J. (MSJ)[Dkt. 9], Decl. ofDavid M. Hardy (Hardy Decl.)[Dkt. 9-1], Ex.
A(RequestNo. 1205920-000)[Dkt. 9-2]at2.2 FBIprocessed and responded to theserequests,
labeling themRequestNos. 1205920-000, 1206188-000, and 1205920-001. Mr. Shapiro now
challengesFBIsresponseto each Request.
A. RequestNos. 1205920-000 and1206188-000By lettersdated January 4, 2013, Mr. Shapiro senttwo requeststo FBIseeking
materialsrelated to theOccupy protestsin Houston, Texas.3 Thefirst, which FBIdesignated as
RequestNo. 1205920-000, sought:
any and all records that were prepared, received, transmitted,
collected and/ormaintained by . . . FBI, the TerroristScreening
center, the National Joint Terrorism Task Force, or any JointTerrorismTask Force relating or referring to a potential plan to
gather intelligence against the leaders of [OccupyWall Street-
related protests in Houston, Texas]and obtain photographs, then
formulate a plan to kill the leadership [of the protests] via
suppressed sniperrifles.
2David M. Hardy, Section ChiefoftheRecord/Information Dissemination Section (RIDS),RecordsManagementDivision (RMD)ofFBI, Hardy Decl. 1, provided two declarationsin
supportofFBIsMotion, seeHardy Decl.;Reply [Dkt. 13], Ex. 1 (Supp. Hardy Decl.)[Dkt. 13-1].
3Mr. Shapiro sentthreeiterationsofboth Requeststo FBI. On December31, 2010, hesenttwo
requests. Compl. 16-19. On January 4, 2013, Mr. Shapiro withdrewthoserequests, and
substituted asecond setofrequestswith aminorcorrection. Id. 20-21. Concerned thathisfailureto sign therequestswould impedeFBIsexpedited processing ofthem, Mr. Shapiro re-
sentthetwo January 4 requestson thatsamedate. Exceptfortheaddition ofhissignature, thisthird submission wasidenticalto thesecond set. Id. 22. Mr. Shapiro asked FBIto respond
only to thethird submission ofthetwo requests. Id. 24-25.
8/12/2019 Occupy Houston
3/31
3
SeeRequestNo. 1205920-000 at1 (alterationsand emphasisin original). Mr. Shapiro stated that
thealleged assassination plan wasdiscussed in otherFBIdocuments, which had been released
through apriorFOIArequest. Seeid. at1. Heattached fivepagesfromtheaforementioned FBI
documentsto hisrequest, allofwhich wereheavily redacted. Seeid. at11-15. Characterizing
hisrequestaspresented underFOIAand PA, id. at1, Mr. Shapiro demanded thatFBIsearch
severalfiling systems, including itsElectronicSurveillance(ELSUR)indices, id. at4-7. Healso
requested expedited processing and afeewaiver. Id. at2, 9-10.
Mr. Shapirossecond requestforrecords, which FBIdesignated RequestNo.
1206188-000, asked for:
any and all records that were prepared, received, transmitted,collected and/ormaintained by . . . FBI, the TerroristScreening
Center, the National Joint Terrorism Task Force, or any JointTerrorism Task Force relating or referring to Occupy Houston,
anyotherOccupyWallStreet-related protestsinHouston, Texas,
and lawenforcementresponsesto theaboveprotests.
SeeHardy Decl., Ex. E(RequestNo. 1206188-000)[Dkt. 9-2]at1 (emphasisin original). Mr.
Shapiro stated thatRequestNo. 1206188-000 wasintended to includeany assassination plots
againstleadersofOccupy WallStreetin Houston. Id. at1. Again, hecharacterized therequest
aspresented underFOIAand PA, demanded thatFBIsearch itsELSURindices, among other
indices, and soughtexpedited processing and afeewaiver. Id. at1-2, 5-7, 9-10.
On February 28, 2013, FBIresponded to both Requestswith similarletters. Each
letterstated thatFBIhad searched itsCentralRecordsSystem(CRS), and thosesearcheshad not
located any main filerecordsresponsiveto theFOIArequest. SeeHardy Decl., Ex. B[Dkt. 9-
2]at1 &Ex. F[Dkt. 9-2]at1. FBIinformed Mr. Shapiro thatheeithercould provideadditional
8/12/2019 Occupy Houston
4/31
4
information, forwhich FBIwould conductan additionalsearch, orcould appealitsresponseto
DOJsOfficeofInformation Policy (OIP)within sixty days.
Mr. Shapiro choseto appeal. SeeHardy Decl., Ex. C[Dkt. 9-2]&Ex. G[Dkt. 9-
2]. Itappearsfromtherecord thatOIPneverdecided theappealon RequestNo. 1205920-000
beforeitclosed thefileon June26, 2013. Hardy Decl. 9 &n.3. Conversely, with respectto
RequestNo. 1206188-000, itisclearthatOIPaffirmed FBIsresponseand informed Mr. Shapiro
ofitsdecision on May 24, 2013. Hardy Decl., Ex. I[Dkt. 9-2].
FBIsubsequently reexamined thesearch thatithad conducted forrecords
responsiveto RequestNo. 1206188-00. WhileFBIfirsthad interpreted RequestNo. 1206188-
000 asseeking only lawenforcementresponsesto protestsin Houston related to Occupy Wall
Street, itrevised itsinterpretation and conducted an additionalsearch forallrecordsreferring to
Occupy Houston. Theadditionalsearch produced twelvepagesofresponsiverecords. On June
24, 2013, FBIinformed Mr. Shapiro thatitwasreleasing, in part, fourofthetwelvepagesof
responsiverecords, and entirely withholding theremaining eightpages. FBIcited FOIA
Exemptions(b)(1), (b)(3), (b)(6), (b)(7)(A), (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D), and (b)(7)(E)asthebasesfor
withholding information contained in theserecords. Hardy Decl. 15;seealso Hardy Decl., Ex.
J[Dkt. 9-2].
B. RequestNo. 1205920-001Mr. Shapiro submitted athird, dualFOIA/PARequestto FBIon February 3,
2013. ThisRequestsoughtany and allrecordsthatwereprepared, received, transmitted,
collected and/ormaintained by . . . FBI, theTerroristScreening Center, theNationalJoint
TerrorismTask Force, orany JointTerrorismTask Forcerelating orreferring to theinformation
8/12/2019 Occupy Houston
5/31
5
sourceredacted (by . . . FBI)and highlighted (by [Mr. Shapiro])inafive-pagedocumentwhich
Mr. Shapiro attached to hisRequest. Hardy Decl. 16 &n.5;seealso Hardy Decl., Ex. K
(RequestNo. 1205920-001)[Dkt. 9-2]. Notably, theattached documentwasidenticalto the
documentthatMr. Shapiro had attached to RequestNo. 1205920-000. Theonly differencewas
thatMr. Shapiro had highlighted thefollowing paragraphs:
An identified REDACTED as of October planned to engage insniperattacksagainstprotestors[sic]in Houston, Texas, ifdeemed
necessary. An identified REDACTED had received intelligence
that indicated the protesters in New York and Seattle plannedsimilar protests in Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, and Austin,
Texas. REDACTED planned to gather intelligence against the
leaders of the protest groups and obtain photographs, thenformulateaplan to killtheleadership viasuppressed sniperrifles.
(Note: protests continued throughout the weekend withapproximately 6000 persons in NYC. Occupy Wall Street
protests have spread to about half ofall states in theUS, over adozen European and Asian cities, including protests in Cleveland
10/6-8/11 atWillard Park which wasinitially attended by hundreds
ofprotestors[sic]). . . .
On 13 October 2011, writer sent via email an excerpt from the
daily REDACTED regarding FBI Houstons REDACTED to allIAs, SSRAsand SSAREDACTED. ThisREDACTEDidentified
the exploitation of the Occupy Movement by REDACTED
interested in developing a long-term plot to kill local Occupyleadersviasniperfire.
Id. at12-16. Asbefore, Mr. Shapiro asked thattheELSURindicesbesearched, and thathe
receiveexpedited processing and afeewaiver. Id. at2, 5, 9-10. Thisletterwaslabelled by FBI
asRequestNo. 1205920-001. SeeHardy Decl., Ex. L[Dkt. 9-2].
FBIresponded on March 8, 2013, telling Mr. Shapiro thattherecordssought
underRequestNo. 1205920-001 pertained to anotherindividual, and thatdisclosureofthird
party information isconsidered an unwarranted invasion ofprivacy. Id. at1. FBIfurther
8/12/2019 Occupy Houston
6/31
6
explained thatrecordscontaining third-party information areexemptfromdisclosureunlessthere
isproofofdeath oraprivacy waiverfromtheindividual[]involved. Id. FBIalso advised Mr.
Shapiro thathehad sixty daysfromthedateoftheletterto appealto OIP. Id.
By letterdated March 13, 2013, Mr. Shapiro appealed FBIsresponseto Request
No. 1205920-001. SeeHardy Decl., Ex. M[Dkt. 9-2]. BeforeOIPreached adecision regarding
Mr. Shapirosappeal,4FBIconducted an additionalsearch forrecordsconcerning the
highlighted portionsofRequestNo. 1205920-001. Hardy Decl. 20. Thissearch identified five
pagesofresponsiverecords, ofwhich FBIreleased onepagein partviaaletterdated June24,
2013. SeeHardy Decl., Ex. O[Dkt. 9-2].5 FBItold Mr. Shapiro thatitwaswithholding
information pursuantto FOIAExemptions(b)(6), (b)(7)(A), (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D), and (b)(7)(E).
Hardy Decl. 20.
C. OverviewoftheDocumentProductionIn total, FBIidentified seventeen pagesofresponsiverecords, producing fiveof
thosepagesin partand entirely withholding twelvepages. FBIBates-numbered theproduced
records, stamping each pagesequentially Shapiro-1 through Shapiro-17.6 Id. 37, 39. Mr.
4OIPclosed itsfileon theappealofRequestNo. 1205920-001 on June26, 2013. Hardy Decl.
19 n.6.
5ThesubjectlineoftheJune24, 2013 letterreferencesRequestNo. 1205920-002, which
appearsto beascrivenerserror. TheCourtwillreferto thisletterasregarding RequestNo.1205920-001.
6Mr. Shapiro grousesthatin aggregating allofthedocumentsresponsiveto [his]threerequestsand Bates-numbering themconsecutively,FBIhasmadeitimpossibleto tellwhich documents
areresponsiveto which request. Oppn [Dkt. 10]at33. Hiscomplaintisunjustified. In
separateletters, FBIclearly identified to which Requesteach documentresponds. SeeExs. J&O. Werethereany possibleconfusion, Mr. HardysSupplementalDeclaration rectifiesit. Mr.
Hardy confirmsthatthetwelvepagesproduced in responseto RequestNo. 1206188-000 areBates-stamped Shapiro-1 through -12, and thefivepagesproduced in responseto RequestNo.
1205920-001 areBates-stamped Shapiro-13 through -17. Supp. Hardy Decl. 31.
8/12/2019 Occupy Houston
7/31
7
Hardy declaresthatFBIsoughtto achievemaximumdisclosureconsistentwith FOIA, and
thereforeproduced redacted pageswherepossible. Id. 38. Accordingly, forrecordsproduced
in part, FBIannotated theredacted information with codesthatindicated theclaimed FOIA
Exemptions. See, e.g., Hardy Decl., Ex. P(Doc. Production)[Dkt. 9-2]atShapiro-9. In his
Declarations, Mr. Hardy providesdetail, such asthestatutory provision atissueforeach claimed
Exemption and theapplicablecaselaw, and includesfootnotesthatcross-referencetherelevant
Batesnumbers. See, e.g., Hardy Decl. 57-60. IfFBIwithheld apagein itsentirety, thepage
wasreplaced with aDeleted PageInformation Sheet,which identifies, interalia, thebasesfor
thewithholding. See, e.g., Doc. Production atShapiro-1.
D. TheInstantLitigationMr. Shapiro filed theinstantlawsuiton April29, 2013. HeallegesthatFBI
violated FOIAby:(1)failing to search adequately for, and producerecordsresponsiveto, each
ofhisRequests;(2)invoking FOIAexemptionsimproperly;(3)failing to respond timely with a
determination on hisappeals;7and (4)neglecting to respond to hisrequestsforafeewaiver.8
Compl. 45-48. Mr. Shapiro seeksan orderdirecting FBIto producetherecordsthathe
requested;healso seeksattorney feesand otherlitigation costs. Id. at9. FBIsupportsitsmotion
to dismiss, orforsummary judgment, with DeclarationsfromMr. Hardy. Mr. Shapiro opposes,
and hasasked theCourtfororalargument, NoticeofOralArg. Request[Dkt. 14], and forleave
to fileasurreply, Mot. to FileSurreply [Dkt. 15]. Healso hasfiled noticeofadecision thathe
saysissubstantially similarto thepresentcase. NoticeofSupp. Authority [Dkt. 16](citing
7Thisportion ofMr. ShapirosComplaintwasmooted oncehefiled theinstantlawsuit.
8Although theRequestsrelied on FOIAand PA, thislawsuitfocusesexclusively on FOIAand
neitherparty addressesPAin theirbriefs. TheCourtdeemsany PAclaimwaived. FDICv.
Bender, 127 F.3d 58, 67-68 (D.C. Cir. 1997);Stephenson v. Cox, 223 F. Supp. 2d 119, 121
(D.D.C. 2002).
8/12/2019 Occupy Houston
8/31
8
ACLUv. FBI, Civ. No. 12-03728, 2013 WL3346845 (N.D. Cal. July 1, 2013)). FBIopposes
Mr. Shapirosrequestforleaveto fileasurreply. Oppn to Surreply [Dkt. 17].
II. LEGALSTANDARDS
A. Motionto DismissFBIassertstwo basesfordismissing thissuit. First, FBIcontendsthatbecauseit
conducted adequatesearchesand released allnon-exemptrecords, thiscaseismoot. Second,
FBIclaimsthatMr. Shapiro hasfailed to stateaclaimunderFOIA.
1. LackofJurisdictionDueto MootnessFBIassertsthattheCourtlacksjurisdiction becauseMr. Shapirosclaimsare
moot, i.e., FBIconducted adequatesearchesand released allnon-exemptrecords. Amotion to
dismissformootnessisproperly broughtunderFederalRuleofCivilProcedure12(b)(1). Flores
exrel. J.F. v. DistrictofColumbia, 437 F. Supp. 2d 22, 27 (D.D.C. 2006). BecauseFBIdid not
releaseallresponsivedocumentsto Mr. Shapiro, and redacted information fromdocumentsthat
werereleased, theCourtfindsthathisclaimsarenotmootand thatthemotion to dismissunder
Rule12(b)(1)iswithoutmerit.
2. Failureto Statea ClaimFBIalso contendsthatMr. Shapiro failed to stateaFOIAclaimbecauseithas
searched forrecordsand released allthatarenotexemptfromdisclosure. Amotion to dismiss
forfailureto stateaclaimunderFederalRuleofCivilProcedure12(b)(6)challengesthe
adequacy ofacomplainton itsface. Acomplaintmustbesufficientto givethedefendantfair
noticeofwhatthe. . . claimisand thegroundsupon which itrests. BellAtl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)(alteration in original)(internalquotation marksand citation omitted).
8/12/2019 Occupy Houston
9/31
9
FBIsmotion to dismissforfailureto stateaclaimignorestheadmitted facts, as
alleged in theComplaint, thatMr. Shapiro requested documentsthathavebeen located butnot
released ornotreleased in full. HecontestsFBIsclaimthatFOIAexemptionsapply. Whilethe
meritsofhisallegationsareto bedetermined, Mr. Shapiro clearly hasstated aclaim. TheCourt
findsthatthemotion to dismissforfailureto stateaclaimiswithoutmerit.
B. MotionforSummary JudgmentFBIalso contendsthatitisentitled to summary judgmentbecausethereisno
genuinedisputeasto any materialfactand itisentitled to judgmentasamatteroflaw. SeeFed.
R. Civ. P. 56(a);Anderson v. LibertyLobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986). Summary judgment
isproperly granted againstaparty who afteradequatetimefordiscovery and upon motion . . .
failsto makeashowing sufficientto establish theexistenceofan elementessentialto thatpartys
case, and on which thatparty willbeartheburden ofproofattrial. CelotexCorp. v. Catrett,
477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). In ruling on amotion forsummaryjudgment, acourtmustdrawall
justifiableinferencesin thenonmoving partysfavorand acceptthenonmoving partysevidence
astrue. Anderson, 477 U.S. at255. Anonmoving party, however, mustestablish morethan
[t]hemereexistenceofascintillaofevidencein supportofitsposition. Id.at252.
FOIAcasesaretypically and appropriately decided on motionsforsummary
judgment. Miscavigev. IRS, 2 F.3d 366, 368 (11th Cir. 1993);Rushford v. Civiletti, 485 F.
Supp. 477, 481 n.13 (D.D.C. 1980), affd, Rushford v. Smith, 656 F.2d 900 (D.C. Cir. 1981). In
aFOIAcase, acourtmay award summary judgmentsolely on thebasisofinformation provided
by theagency in affidavitsordeclarationswhen theaffidavitsordeclarationsdescribethe
documentsand thejustificationsfornondisclosurewith reasonably specificdetail, demonstrate
8/12/2019 Occupy Houston
10/31
10
thattheinformation withheld logically fallswithin theclaimed exemption, and arenot
controverted by eithercontrary evidencein therecord norby evidenceofagency bad faith.
MilitaryAuditProjectv. Casey, 656 F.2d 724, 738 (D.C. Cir. 1981);seealso Vaughn v. Rosen,
484 F.2d 820, 826-28 (D.C. Cir. 1973)(requiring agenciesto preparean itemized index
correlating each withheld document, orportion thereof, with aspecificFOIAExemption and the
relevantpartoftheagencysnondisclosurejustification). An agency mustdemonstratethat
each documentthatfallswithin theclassrequested eitherhasbeen produced, isunidentifiable,
oriswholly [orpartially]exemptfromFOIAsrequirements. Goland v. CIA, 607 F.2d 339,
352 (D.C. Cir. 1978)(internalquotation marksand citation omitted).
III. ANALYSIS
Attheoutset, theCourtnotesthatFBIhasnotfiled atraditionalitemized Vaughn
index. However, theHardy Declarations, taken together, aresufficiently specific, detailed, and
separableto satisfy [FBIs]burden underVaughnbecausethe[Declarations]provide[]a
reasonablebasisto evaluate[each]claimofprivilege. Hodgev. FBI, 764 F. Supp. 2d 134, 141
(D.D.C. 2011)(quoting JudicialWatch, Inc. v. FDA, 449 F.3d 141, 146 (D.C. Cir. 2006)), affd,
703 F.3d 575 (D.C. Cir. 2013);seealso Keysv. U.S. DeptofJustice, 830 F.2d 337, 349 (D.C.
Cir. 1987)(explaining thattheCircuitspost-Vaughn opinionsmakeclearthataVaughn index
isevaluated in termsofitsfunction ratherthan form).
A. FOIAGenerallyFOIArequiresfederalagenciesto releasegovernmentrecordsto thepublicupon
request, subjectto ninelisted exceptions. See5 U.S.C. 552(b);Wolfv. CIA, 473 F.3d 370, 374
(D.C. Cir. 2007). To prevailin aFOIAcase, theplaintiffmustshowthatan agency has
8/12/2019 Occupy Houston
11/31
11
(1)improperly (2)withheld (3)agency records. U.S. DeptofJusticev. TaxAnalysts, 492 U.S.
136, 142 (1989);United WeStand Am., Inc. v. IRS, 359 F.3d 595, 598 (D.C. Cir. 2004). FOIA
authorizessuitonly againstfederalagenciesand limitstheremedy fortheimproperwithholding
ofrecordsto injunctiverelief. Kissingerv. ReportersComm. forFreedomofthePress, 445 U.S.
136, 150 (1980);seealso 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B)&(f)(1). Adistrictcourtmay only orderthe
agency to produceerroneously withheld records. See, e.g., KennecottUtah CopperCorp. v. U.S.
DeptoftheInterior, 88 F.3d 1191, 1203 (D.C. Cir. 1996)(finding FOIAonly callsforreleasing
recordsto acomplainant, notpublication in theFederalRegister). Onceallrequested records
havebeen produced, thereisno longeracaseorcontroversy and aFOIAaction becomesmoot.
SeeArmstrong v. Exec. OfficeofthePresident, 97 F.3d 575, 582 (D.C. Cir. 1996).
An agency defending aFOIAcasemustshowthatitssearch forresponsive
recordswasadequate, thatany exemptionsclaimed actually apply, and thatany reasonably
segregablenon-exemptpartsofrecordshavebeen disclosed afterredaction ofexempt
information. SeeSandersv. Obama, 729 F. Supp. 2d 148, 154 (D.D.C. 2010), affd, Sandersv.
U.S. DeptofJustice, No. 10-5273 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 21, 2011). Theadequacy ofasearch is
measured by astandard ofreasonablenessand dependson theindividualcircumstancesofeach
case. Truittv. DeptofState, 897 F.2d 540, 542 (D.C. Cir. 1990). Thequestion isnotwhether
otherresponsiverecordsmay exist, butwhetherthesearch itselfwasadequate. Steinberg v. U.S.
DeptofJustice, 23 F.3d 548, 551 (D.C. Cir. 1994).
Thus, to rebutachallengeto theadequacy ofasearch, an agency need only show
thatthesearch wasreasonably calculated to discovertherequested documents, notwhetherit
actually uncovered every documentextant. SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197, 1201
8/12/2019 Occupy Houston
12/31
12
(D.C. Cir. 1991)(citing Meeropolv. Meese, 790 F.2d 942, 950-51 (D.C. Cir. 1986)). Thereisno
requirementthatan agency search every record system, buttheagency mustconductagood
faith, reasonablesearch ofthosesystemsofrecordslikely to possessrequested records. Oglesby
v. U.S. DeptofArmy, 920 F.2d 57, 68 (D.C. Cir. 1990).
An agency may provethereasonablenessofitssearch through adeclaration by a
responsibleagency official, so long asthedeclaration isreasonably detailed and notcontroverted
by contrary evidenceorevidenceofbad faith. MilitaryAuditProject, 656 F.2d at738. An
agency affidavitcan demonstratereasonablenessby setting forth thesearch termsand thetype
ofsearch performed, and averring thatallfileslikely to contain responsivematerials(ifsuch
recordsexist)weresearched. Valencia-Lucena v. U.S. CoastGuard, 180 F.3d 321, 326 (D.C.
Cir. 1999). Agency declarationsareaccorded apresumption ofgood faith, which cannotbe
rebutted by purely speculativeclaimsabouttheexistenceand discoverability ofother
documents. SafeCard, 926 F.2d at1200 (internalquotation marksand citation omitted);see
also id.at1201 (Merespeculation thatasyetuncovered documentsmay existdoesnot
underminethefinding thattheagency conducted areasonablesearch forthem.). An affiant
who isin chargeofcoordinating an agencysdocumentsearch effortsisthemostappropriate
person to provideacomprehensiveaffidavitin FOIAlitigation. Id. Further, declarationsthat
contain hearsay in recounting searchesfordocumentsaregenerally acceptable. Kayv. FCC, 976
F. Supp. 23, 34 n.29 (D.D.C. 1997), affd, 172 F.3d 919 (D.C. Cir. 1998)(Table).
Oncean agency hasprovided adequateaffidavits, aplaintiffmustdemonstratethe
lack ofagood faith search. SeeMaynard v. CIA, 986 F.2d 547, 560 (1stCir. 1993). Ifthe
record raisessubstantialdoubtasto thereasonablenessofthesearch, especially in lightofwell-
8/12/2019 Occupy Houston
13/31
13
defined requestsand positiveindicationsofoverlooked materials,then summaryjudgmentmay
beinappropriate. Founding Church ofScientologyofWashington, D.C. v. NSA, 610 F.2d 824,
837 (D.C. Cir. 1979). However, FOIAwasnotintended to reducegovernmentagenciesto full-
timeinvestigatorson behalfofrequesters. JudicialWatch, Inc. v. Export-ImportBank, 108 F.
Supp. 2d 19, 27 (D.D.C. 2000)(internalquotation marksand citation omitted). Agenciesarenot
required to organizedocumentsto facilitateFOIAresponses,Goulding v. IRS, Civ. No. 97-C-
5628, 1998 WL325202, at*5 (N.D. Ill. June8, 1998)(citing NLRBv.Sears, Roebuck&Co.,
421 U.S. 132, 162 (1975));seealso Blakeyv. DepartmentofJustice, 549 F. Supp. 362, 366-67
(D.D.C. 1982)(FOIAwasnotintended to compelagenciesto becomead hocinvestigatorsfor
requesterswhoserequestsarenotcompatiblewith theirown information retrievalsystems.),
affd, 720 F.2d 215 (D.C. Cir. 1983)(Table), and FOIAdoesnotrequireagenciesto createor
retain documents, Moorev. Bush, 601 F. Supp. 2d 6, 15 (D.D.C. 2009). Further, an agency is
notrequired to undertakeasearch thatisso broad asto beunduly burdensome. Nation
Magazine, Wash. Bureau v. U.S. CustomsServ., 71 F.3d 885, 891 (D.C. Cir. 1995). [I]tisthe
requestersresponsibility to framerequestswith sufficientparticularity . . . . JudicialWatch,
108 F. Supp. 2d at27 (internalquotation marksand citation omitted). An agencyssearch must
beevaluated in lightoftherequestmade. Theagency isnotobliged to look beyond thefour
cornersoftherequestforleadsto thelocation ofresponsivedocuments. Kowalczykv. Deptof
Justice, 73 F.3d 386, 389 (D.C. Cir. 1996).
8/12/2019 Occupy Houston
14/31
14
B. Adequacy andScopeofFBIsSearchTheHardy DeclarationsmakeclearthatFBIconducted good faith and reasonable
searchesofitsrecordssystemslikely to possessrecordsresponsiveto Mr. Shapirosrequests.9
In responding to thethreeRequests, FBIsearched CRSand ELSUR. CRSisan electronic
repository forinformation compiled forlawenforcementpurposesaswellasadministrative,
applicant, criminal, personnel, and otherfiles. Hardy Decl. 22. ELSURisaseparatesystemof
recordsused to maintain information on asubjectwhoseelectronicand/orvoicecommunications
havebeen intercepted asapartofconsensualorcourt-ordered wiretap. Id.28. CRSis
searched viatheAutomated CaseSupportSystem(ACS), id. 22, which consistsofthe
InvestigativeCaseManagement, ElectronicCaseFile(ECF), and UniversalIndex software
applications, id. 26, and isaccessed through GeneralIndices, which aresearchableby subject,
id. 23-24. ELSURindicesalso areautomated, butconstituteaseparatesystemofrecords
fromCRSand cannotberetrieved through eithertheGeneralIndex orCRS. Id.29-30.
With respectto RequestNo. 1205920-000, FBIsearched ELSURand conducted a
textsearch ofECFforthetermOccupy Houstonasitrelatesto theassassination plotalleged
in Mr. Shapirosrequest. Id. 32-33. Mr. Hardy statesthatFBIdoesnotordinarily conducta
textsearch ofECF, butdid so herebecauseitprovided amorecomprehensivesearch ofCRS.
Id. 32. Noneofthesesearchesturned up responsiverecords. Id. 33.
In itssearch related to RequestNo. 1205920-001, Mr. Hardy statesthatFBI
againreviewed thepassageshighlighted by Mr. Shapiro and contacted theappropriateunit
9Exceptfortherecordsforwhich FBIinvokesFOIAExemption 7, theCourtfindstheHardyDeclarationssufficiently detailed so thatin camera reviewoftheunderlying documentsis
unnecessary. SeeACLUv. U.S. DeptofDefense, 628 F.3d 612, 627 (D.C. Cir. 2011).
8/12/2019 Occupy Houston
15/31
15
[that]handlesthereportsreferencedtherein. Id. 34. Thissearch resulted in theidentification
offivepagesofresponsiverecords.
AsforRequestNo. 1206188-000, FBIsearched CRSand conducted atextsearch
ofECFusing thetermlawenforcementresponsesand Occupy Houston.Id. 35. Drawing on
asimilarFOIArequestfrom2011, FBIalso searched forthefollowing terms:Occupy
Movement/Northern California,Occupy Oakland,Occupy San Francisco,Occupy Cal,
Occupy UCDavis,OWS,Occupy Wall,Occupy Movement,Occupy Encampments,
Occupy Encampment,Occupy McPherson,Occupy ZuccottiPark,Occupy NewYork
City,Occupy DC,Occupy Portland,Occupy Sacramento,Occupy SaltLakeCity,
Occupy Seattle,Occupy Atlanta,Occupy San Jose,Occupy Boston,Occupy Los
Angeles,Occupy Indianapolis,Occupy Baltimore,Occupy St. Louis,Occupy
Cincinnati,Occupy Providence,Occupy Austin,Occupy Denver,Occupy Eugene,
Occupy Philadelphia,Occupy Buffalo,Occupy LasVegas,Occupy Charlotte,Occupy
Pittsburgh,Occupy Dallas,Occupy Houston,Occupy Chicago,Occupy Washington,
Occupy Washington DC,and Occupy K.10 Id. 36. Thesesearchesproduced 454 pagesof
potentially responsiverecords, ofwhich FBIdetermined twelvewereresponsive. Id.
Mr. Shapiro claimsthatFBIssearcheswereinadequate. HeaccusesFBIof
ignor[ing]alloftheleadsthatwereturned up by thedocuments,failing to producedocuments
thatwerereferenced in theunredacted portionsoftherecordshereceived fromFBI(i.e., an
IIR,and an emailreferenced on an iWatch Report), insufficiently describing thesearch
10Theadequacy ofthe2011 search thatFBIreferenceswaslitigated in Truthoutv. Department
ofJustice(TruthoutI), Civ. No. 12-1660 (RMC), 2013 WL3742496 (D.D.C. July 17, 2013), andTruthoutv. DepartmentofJustice(TruthoutII), Civ. No. 12-1660 (RMC), 2013 WL5630250
(D.D.C. Oct. 16, 2013). ThisCourtconcluded thatFBIconducted good faith, reasonablesearchesofthesystemsofrecordslikely to possessrecordsresponsiveto [p]laintiffsrequests,TruthoutII, 2013 WL5630250, at*1, and denied plaintiffsmotion forreconsideration, id.at*4.
8/12/2019 Occupy Houston
16/31
16
conducted forRequestNo. 1205920-001, and using thepatently unreasonablesearch term
lawenforcementresponsesand Occupy Houstonin connection with RequestNo. 1206188-
000. Oppn at31-32. Asrevealed by Mr. HardysSupplementalDeclaration, many ofMr.
Shapirosclaimsarefactually inaccurate.
Mr. Hardy statesthatFBIdid, in fact, conductfollow-on searches. Supp. Hardy
Decl. 8-12. Forinstance, heaffirmsthatFBIinitially searched forlawenforcement
responsesand Occupy Houstonin connection with RequestNo. 1206188-000, butsubsequently
used thebroadersearch term:Occupy Houston. Id. 11. Healso statesthatFBIreleased to
Mr. Shapiro theIIRand iWatch Reportthatarementioned in Shapiro-11 and 13,Supp. Hardy
Decl. 8, and thatany additionaldocumentswould havebeen located through FBIsearchesif
they had been indexed,id. 9-10.
Likewise, Mr. ShapirosclaimthattheHardy Declaration insufficiently describes
thesearch undertaken forRequestNo. 1205920-001 iswithoutmeritupon reviewofthe
SupplementalDeclaration. Mr. Hardy initially stated thatFBIreviewed thehighlighted
portionsof[Mr. Shapiros]requestagainand contacted theappropriateunit[that]handlesthe
reportsreferenced in theFBIdocumentattached to [Mr. Shapiros]request. Hardy Decl. 34.
In hisSupplementalDeclaration, Mr. Hardy clarifiesthatRIDScontacted theappropriateunit
in relation to theIRRand iWatch Report, which apparently werereferenced in thedocuments
thatMr. Shapiro attached to RequestNo. 1205920-001 and highlighted. Supp. Hardy Decl. 10.
Mr. Hardy addsthat[a]ny otheradditionaldocumentswould havebeen located through . . .
FBIsreasonablesearch oftheCRSasdescribedin hisinitialDeclaration.11 Id.
11TheCourtnotesthatMr. HardysinitialDeclaration doesnotexplicitly statethatFBIsearchedCRSin connection with RequestNo. 1205920-001. However, upon closerinspection ofthe
record beforetheCourt, itisclearthatFBIconducted such asearch. Theconfusion stemsfrom
8/12/2019 Occupy Houston
17/31
17
Thus, contrary to Mr. Shapiroscontentions, theHardy Declarationsestablish that
allofFBIssearcheswerereasonably calculated to discoverrequested documents. SafeCard,
926 F.2d at1200-01;Meeropol, 790 F.2d at950-51. FBIwasnotrequired to search every record
system;itwasonly required to conductareasonablesearch ofthosesystemsofrecordslikelyto
possesstherequested information. Oglesby, 920 F.2d at68. Here, FBIexceeded thisstandard.
In responding to RequestNo. 1206188-000, FBItook theadditionalstep ofconducting atext
search ofECFformorethan forty search termsfromanotherOccupy-related FOIAcase. In
short, allthreeofFBIssearcheswereadequate.
C. ClaimedExemptionsFollowing areasonablesearch, an agency may lawfully withhold recordsthatare
exemptfromreleaseunderFOIA. [A]lthough FOIAstrongly favorspromptdisclosure, itsnine
enumerated exemptionsaredesigned to protectthoselegitimategovernmentaland private
intereststhatmightbeharmed by releaseofcertain typesofinformation. Augustv. FBI, 328
F.3d 697, 699 (D.C. Cir. 2003)(internalquotation marksand citation omitted). Thisisbecause
theimprecisewording used in theinitialHardy Declaration. Mr. HardysstatementthatFBIreviewed thehighlighted portionsof[Mr. Shapiros]requestagainsupposesthatFBIreviewed
thehighlighted portionsatsomepointearlierin time. Hardy Decl. 34 (emphasisadded).Although Mr. Hardy doesnotspellitoutexplicitly, itisclearfromtherecord thatFBI, in fact,
conducted asearch forthehighlighted portionsofthedocumentattached to RequestNo.1205920-001 when itran asearch in connection with RequestNo. 1205920-000. Thisisbecause
RequestNos. 1205920-000 and 1205920-001 overlap. Attached to both Requestswereseveralpreviously released records, including an FBIdocumentdated October19, 2011. Theonly
differencebetween theFBIdocumentattached to RequestNo. 1205920-000 and theFBI
documentattached to RequestNo. 1205920-001 wasthatMr. Shapiro highlighted certainparagraphsin thelatter. Accordingly, when Mr. Hardy statesthatFBIagainreviewed the
highlighted portionsofMr. Shapirosrequest, id., hemeansto say thatFBIalready had searched
forrecordsresponsiveto thedocumentaspartofitsresponseto RequestNo. 1205920-000.Ratherthan dismissRequestNo. 1205920-001 asredundant, FBItook theextrastep ofreviewing
thedocumentagainand contacting theappropriateunitthathandlestheIRRand iWatchreports. Thus, itisaccurateto say thatFBIsearched CRSin responding to RequestNo.
1205920-001.
8/12/2019 Occupy Houston
18/31
18
disclosure, notsecrecy, isthedominantobjectiveoftheAct. DeptoftheAirForcev. Rose,
425 U.S. 352, 361 (1976). Consequently, theexemptionsarenarrowly construed. TaxAnalysts,
492 U.S. at151.
1. Exemption1Information concerning mattersofnationalsecurity isexemptfromdisclosure
underFOIAExemption 1 so long astheinformation satisfiesthesubstantiveand procedural
criteriasetforth in an ExecutiveOrder. See5 U.S.C. 552(b)(1). TheExecutiveOrder
applicableto theinstantlitigation isExecutiveOrder13,526, which PresidentObamaissued on
December29, 2009. SeeExec. Order. No. 13,526, 75 Fed. Reg. 707 (Dec. 29, 2009).12
It
permitsinformation to beclassified ifthefollowing conditionsaremet:
(1)an original classification authority is classifying theinformation;
(2)theinformation isowned by, produced by orfor, orisunderthecontroloftheUnited StatesGovernment;
(3)the information falls within one ormore of the categories ofinformation listed in section 1.4 of[the][O]rder;and
(4)the original classification authority determines that theunauthorized disclosureoftheinformation reasonably could beexpected to result in damage to the national security whichincludes defense against transnational terrorism, and the
original classification authority isable to identify or describe
thedamage.
Id. 1.1(a). In reviewing classification determinationsunderExemption 1, theD.C. Circuithas
repeatedly stressed thatsubstantialweightmustbeaccorded agency affidavitsconcerning the
classified statusoftherecordsatissue. See, e.g., Krikorian v. DeptofState, 984 F.2d 461, 464
(D.C. Cir. 1993);MilitaryAuditProject, 656 F.2d at738. AstheD.C. Circuithascautioned,
12ExecutiveOrder13,526 revoked ExecutiveOrder13,292 and ExecutiveOrder12,958. Seeid.
6.2(g).
8/12/2019 Occupy Houston
19/31
19
[j]udges. . . lack theexpertisenecessary to second-guess. . . agency opinionsin thetypical
nationalsecurity FOIAcase. Halperin v. CIA, 629 F.2d 144, 148 (D.C. Cir. 1980).
Mr. Shapiro doesnotdisputethattheHardy Declaration establishesthatMr.
Hardy isaproperclassifying authority, seeHardy Decl. 2, orthattheinformation redacted is
underthecontroloftheUnited StatesGovernment,id. 47. NordoesMr. Shapiro quibble
with Mr. Hardyssworn avermentthatthewithheld information fallswithin subsection (c)of
section 1.4 becauseitconcernsintelligenceactivities(including covertaction), intelligence
sourcesormethods, orcryptology. Id. 48 (quoting Exec. OrderNo. 13,526, 1.4(c)).
Instead, Mr. Shapiro challengestheadequacy oftheHardy Declarationsdescription ofwithheld
information, both in termsofthecontextand natureoftheinformation, aswellasthe
consequencesthatreasonably willflowfromdisclosure.
Relying primarily on King v. United StatesDepartmentofJustice, 830 F.2d 210
(D.C. Cir. 1987), Mr. Shapiro identifiesseveralalleged deficienciesin theHardy Declaration.
Mr. Shapiro contendsthattheHardy Declaration doesnotprovidesufficientcontextforthe
redactions. Healso suggeststhatFBIslimited relianceon Exemption 1 means, a fortiori, that
additionalcontextcan beprovided withoutharming nationalsecurity. Oppn at5. Further,
Mr. Shapiro arguesthattheHardy Declarationsdescription ofthewithholding ofintelligence
activities, methods, and sourcesalready hasbeen found to beinadequateunderKing, see830
F.2d at222 &n.93 (deeming insufficientashort, genericparagraph addressing themeaning of
intelligencemethodsoractivities), so thatMr. Hardysdescription ofthepotentialharmto
nationalsecurity resulting fromdisclosureisso categoricalthatitneithercorrelate[s]particular
reasonswith particularredactions,Oppn at7 (citing Branch v. FBI, 658 F. Supp. 204, 208
8/12/2019 Occupy Houston
20/31
20
(D.D.C. 1987)), norestablishesalogicalnexusbetween disclosure. . . and damageto the
nationalsecurity,Oppn at8 (alteration in original)(quoting King, 830 F.2d at223). Finally,
Mr. Shapiro accusesFBIofcutting-and-pasting languagefromaffidavitsprepared forother
FOIAlawsuits, instead ofpreparing acase-specificdeclaration. SeeOppn at9-16 (comparing
theinitialDeclaration to affidavitsproduced in fourotherFOIAlawsuits). Mr. Shapiro
concludesthatthesizeand location oftheredactionsconstitutecontrary record evidencethatthe
withheld information mightconcern detailed intelligenceactivities. Hardy Decl. 53.
Mr. ShapirosargumentpullsKing fromitsmooringsand generally misreadsD.C.
Circuitprecedent. Although King reproved affidavitspremised on [c]ategoricaldescription[s]
ofredacted materialcoupled with categoricalindication[s]ofanticipated consequencesof
disclosure,id. at224, itneitherindicated thatalimited invocation ofExemption 1 necessarily
undermineswithholding information norsuggested thatallprcisofwithheld information are
insufficient. Rather, theD.C. Circuitdirected thatan agency need only provideasmuch
information aspossiblewithoutthwarting theexemptionspurpose. Id. (emphasisadded).
Morerecently, theD.C. Circuithasunderscored thedeferentialnatureofjudicialreviewin FOIA
casesinvolving mattersofnationalsecurity. Oncean agency supportsanationalsecurity
exemption with statementsthat:
contain reasonable specificity of detailas to demonstrate that thewithheld information logically fallswithin theclaimed exemption
and evidence in the record does not suggest otherwise, . . . thecourt should not conduct a more detailed inquiry to test the
agencysjudgmentand expertiseor to evaluatewhether thecourtagreeswith theagencysopinions.
Larson v. DeptofState, 565 F.3d 857, 865 (D.C. Cir. 2009)(emphasisadded). To besure,
conclusory affidavitswith vagueorsweepingstatementsareinsufficient. Id. at864. But,
8/12/2019 Occupy Houston
21/31
21
wheretheagencysaffidavitsatisfiestheLarson standard, theCircuithasconsistently deferred
to executiveaffidavitspredicting harmto thenationalsecurity[]and . . . found itunwiseto
undertakesearching judicialreview. Id. at865 (internalquotation marksand citation omitted).
Contrary to Mr. Shapiroscontentions, theHardy Declaration issufficiently
detailed forthesepurposes. Itdefineswhatconstitutesan intelligenceactivity ormethod, Hardy
Decl. 49, and describeswith reasonabledetailtheinformation withheld so asto demonstrate
thatExemption 1 applieswithoutrevealing theexactinformation atissue, id. 50. Mr. Hardy
also reportsthathedetermined thatthewithheld information wasproperly classified Secret
becauseitsunauthorized disclosurereasonably could beexpected to causeseriousdamageto
nationalsecurity,13id. 47, and describesseveralconcreteand logicalharmsto nationalsecurity
thatreasonably may resultiftheinformation weredisclosed, id. 51. TheHardy Declaration is
sufficiently tailored to Mr. Shapirosdocumentrequests, even ifpartsofithavebeen relied upon
in othercases. SeeColdiron v. U.S. DeptofJustice, 310 F. Supp. 2d 44, 45 (D.D.C. 2004)
(analyzing whetheran FBIdeclarationsdiscussion ofExemption 1 wasmereboilerplate, noting
that[t]hemerefactofrepetition isnot, in itself, important). Similarly, thereisno basisin
precedentorlogicfortheproposition thatthelocation orsizeofaredaction contradictsasworn
statementon theneed to keep theinformation classified.
In reality, Mr. Shapirosissuewith theHardy Declaration isthatitdoesnotreveal
theinformation hewants. SeeOppn at8 (faulting theHardy Declaration becauseits
description oftheagencysinvocation ofExemption 1 containsno specificreferenceto the
subjectsofMr. Shapirosrequests. . .). ButthatisthepointofExemption 1. SeeSupp. Hardy
13Nationalsecurity,asdefined in 6.1(cc)ofExecutiveOrder13,526, meansthenationaldefenseorforeign relationsoftheUnited States.
8/12/2019 Occupy Houston
22/31
22
Decl. 15 (To furtherexplain thematerialthatisbeing protected by Exemption (b)(1)would
revealthevery natureoftheinformation . . . FBIistrying to protect.). Disclosureofmattersof
nationalsecurity isuniquely within thepurviewoftheExecutiveBranch. ThatFBIdid not
disclosewhatmightappearto beminordetailsaboutplotsagainstOccupy Houston leadership or
lawenforcementsresponseto Occupy Houston protestsisnotconsequential. Whatmay seem
likeminordetailsto aperson outsidelawenforcement, in reality, may revealmoreinformation
than theirapparentinsignificancesuggestsbecause, much likeapieceofjigsawpuzzle, [each
detail]may aid in piecing togetherotherbitsofinformation even when theindividualpieceisnot
ofobviousimportancein itself. . . . Larson, 565 F.3d at864 (alterationsin original);Hardy
Decl. 54 (stating thateach pieceofinformation wasevaluated with carefulconsideration
given to theimpactthatdisclosureofthisinformation willhaveon othersensitiveinformation
contained elsewherein theUnited Statesintelligencecommunitysfiles). Thetwo declarations
fromMr. Hardy givetheCourtno reason to second-guessFBIsdecision to withhold certain
information underExemption 1, even ifsuch second-guessing wereappropriate. NeitherHardy
Declaration iscontradicted by therecord orundermined by any hintofagency bad faith.
Accordingly, they areduesubstantialweight. Mr. Shapiroschallengeto FBIsrelianceon
Exemption 1 iswithoutmerit.
2. Exemption3Exemption 3 protectsrecordsthatarespecifically exempted fromdisclosureby
statute. . . ifthatstatute. . . requiresthatthemattersbewithheld fromthepublicin such a
mannerasto leaveno discretion on theissue;or. . . establishesparticularcriteriaforwithholding
orrefersto particulartypesofmattersto bewithheld. 5. U.S.C. 552(b)(3)(A). Iftherelevant
8/12/2019 Occupy Houston
23/31
23
statutewasenacted afterOctober28, 2009, theenactmentdateoftheOPENFOIAActof2009,
then thestatutemustspecifically citeExemption 3. Id. 552(b)(3)(B).
Exemption 3, therefore, isunlikeotherFOIAexemptions. [I]tsapplicability
dependslesson thedetailed factualcontentsofspecificdocuments;thesoleissuefordecision is
theexistenceofarelevantstatuteand theinclusion ofwithheld materialwithin thatstatutes
coverage. Goland, 607 F.2d at350;Assn ofRetired R.R. Workersv. U.S. R.R. Ret. Bd., 830
F.2d 331, 336 (D.C. Cir. 1987). FBIneed only showthatthestatuteclaimed isoneof[the]
exemption[s]ascontemplated by Exemption 3 and thatthewithheld materialfallswithin the
statute. Larson, 565 F.3d at868 (citing Fitzgibbon v. CIA, 911 F.2d 755, 761-62 (D.C. Cir.
1990)).
Thestatuterelevantto thisdiscussion istheNationalSecurity Actof1947, 50
U.S.C. 3001 etseq., asamended by theIntelligenceReformand TerrorismPrevention Actof
2004, Pub. L. 108-458, 118 Stat. 3638 (2004). TheNationalSecurity Actprovidesthatthe
DirectorofNationalIntelligence14shallprotectintelligencesourcesand methodsfrom
unauthorized disclosure. 50 U.S.C. 403-1(i)(1).15 Italso directsDNIto establish and
implementguidelinesfortheintelligencecommunityfor, interalia, [c]lassification of
information underapplicablelaw, Executiveorders, orotherPresidentialdirectivesand
[a]ccessto and dissemination ofintelligence. . . . Id. 403-1(i)(2).16
FBIisamemberofthe
14TheDirectorofNationalIntelligence(DNI)hasassumed certain dutiespreviously delegated to
theDirectorofCentralIntelligence. SeeWolf, 473 F.3d at377 n.6.
15Thissection hasbeen transferred to 50 U.S.C. 3024(i)(1).
16Thissection hasbeen transferred to 50 U.S.C. 3024(i)(2)(A)-(B).
8/12/2019 Occupy Houston
24/31
24
intelligencecommunity. Id. 401a(4)(H).17 Accordingly, FBIcorrectly construestheNational
Security Actasafederalstatutethatleavesitwith no discretion [in]. . . withholding fromthe
publicinformation aboutintelligencesourcesand methods. Hardy Decl. 58 (citing CIAv.
Sims, 471 U.S. 159 (1985)). Itiswellestablished thattheNationalSecurity Actisprecisely
thetypeofstatute[]comprehended by [E]xemption 3. Schoenman v. FBI, Civ. No. 04-2202,
2009 WL763065, at*24 (D.D.C. Mar. 19, 2009)(quoting Goland, 607 F.2d at349)(other
citationsomitted);seeSims, 471 U.S. at167 (recognizing thattheprovision oftheNational
Security ActthatdirectsDNIto protectintelligencesourcesand methodsfromunauthorized
disclosureclearly refersto particulartypesofmatters,50 U.S.C. 552(b)(3), and thus,
qualifiesasawithholding statuteunderExemption 3);Valfellsv. CIA, 717 F. Supp. 2d 110,
116 (D.D.C. 2010)(noting thattheNationalSecurity Acthasbeen recognized as[an]
exempting statute[]forthepurposesofExemption 3), affd, Moorev. CIA, 666 F.3d 1330 (D.C.
Cir. 2011).
FBIalso hasdemonstrated thatthewithheld information fallswithin theNational
Security Act. FBIinvoked Exemption 3 in conjunction with Exemption 1 which, asdiscussed
supra, concernsintelligenceactivitiesand methods. TheHardy Declarationshaveprovided
sufficientinformation to showthatExemption 3 appliesforthesamereason thatExemption 1
applies, asthewithheld information relate[s]to intelligencesourcesand methodsutilized in the
investigationsatissue. Supp. Hardy Decl. 16.18
17Thissection hasbeen transferred to 50 U.S.C. 3003(4)(H).
18Thisavermentin theSupplementalDeclaration, along with footnote10 in theoriginal
Declaration, seeHardy Decl. 60 n.10, mootsMr. ShapiroscomplaintthatMr. Hardy describesintelligenceactivities,butnotsourcesormethods, Oppn at18. Assuming arguendo that
intelligenceactivitiesdo notencompassintelligencesourcesormethods,itisclearfromboth
8/12/2019 Occupy Houston
25/31
25
Mr. Shapiro countersthatSims, 471 U.S. 159, and ACLU, 628 F.3d 612, require
FBIto connectthesourcesand methodsitwishesto protectto foreign intelligence,Oppn at
18, which hecontendsithasnotdone. Yet, neitherSimsnorACLUstandsforthisproposition.
Simsitselfactually involved domesticeducationalinstitutionsand researchers. Fitzgibbon,
911 F.2d at764-65. Itunequivocally held thattheDirectorofCentralIntelligencemay protect
allintelligencesources, regardlessoftheirprovenance. Id. at762 (emphasisadded). ACLU
doesnothold differently. FBIsinvocation ofExemption 3 wasproper.
3. Exemption6FBIwithheld information underExemption 6, which protectsfromdisclosure
personneland medicalfilesand similarfilesthedisclosureofwhich would constituteaclearly
unwarranted invasion ofpersonalprivacy. 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6). TheExemption 6 analysishas
two components:(1)whethertheinformation atissueiscontained in personnel, medical, or
similarfilesand (2)whetherdisclosurewould constituteaclearly unwarranted invasion of
personalprivacy. Thetermsimilarfilesisbroadly interpreted, such thatExemption 6 protects
fromdisclosureallinformation thatappliesto aparticularindividualin theabsenceofapublic
interestin disclosure. Lardnerv. DeptofJustice, 638 F. Supp. 2d 14, 23 (D.D.C. 2009)
(quoting U.S. DeptofStatev. Wash. PostCo., 456 U.S. 595, 602 (1982)), affd, 398 F. Appx
609 (D.C. Cir. 2010). Thethreshold isfairly minimal,and [a]llinformation which appliesto
aparticularindividualiscovered by Exemption 6, regardlessofthetypeoffilein which itis
contained. Wash. PostCo. v. U.S. DeptofHealth &Human Servs., 690 F.2d 252, 260 (D.C.
Cir. 1982)(quoting Wash. Post, 456 U.S. at602).
theDeclarationsand themarkingson thereleased documentsthattheinformation redacted under
Exemption 3 isthesameastheinformation redacted underExemption 1.
8/12/2019 Occupy Houston
26/31
26
Exemption 6 requiresacourtto balancetheindividualsprivacy rightsagainstthe
basicpurposeofFOIAto open agency action to thelightofpublicscrutiny. Rose, 425 U.S.
at372 (internalquotation marksand citation omitted);seealso Lepelletierv. FDIC, 164 F.3d 37,
46 (D.C. Cir. 1999). UnderExemption 6, theprivacy interestatstakebelongsto theindividual,
notto theagency. SeeNatlAssn ofRetired Fed. Emps. v. Horner, 879 F.2d 873, 875 (D.C. Cir.
1989)(noting an individualssignificantprivacy interestin avoiding theunlimited disclosureof
hisorhernameand address). Itistherequestersobligation to articulateapublicinterest
sufficientto outweigh an individualsprivacy interest, and thepublicinterestmustbesignificant.
NatlArchives&RecordsAdmin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157, 172 (2004)(interpreting analogous
Exemption 7(C)).
Here, FBIwithheld certain recordsotherwiseresponsiveto Mr. Shapiros
Requestson theground thatExemption 6 applies. Hardy Decl. 63-72. Specifically, FBI
withheld thenamesand identifying information ofthefollowing individuals:(1)federaland state
lawenforcementofficersand personnel, id. 65-67;(2)third partieswho provided information
to FBI, id. 68-69;(3)third partiesmentioned in theresponsiverecords, id. 70;and (4)anon-
FBIfederalemployee, id. 71-72. Mr. Shapiro only challengesFBIsdecision to withhold the
namesand identifying information ofthird partieswho provided information to FBI, and only
doesso to theextentthatFBIrelieson Exemption 7(C). Accordingly, Mr. Shapiro haswaived
any argumentasto theapplicability ofExemption 6. SeeCSXTransp., Inc. v. Commercial
Union Ins., Co., 82 F.3d 478, 482-83 (D.C. Cir. 1996);seealso Hopkinsv. WomensDiv., Bd. of
GlobalMinistries, 238 F. Supp. 2d 174, 178 (D.D.C. 2002).
8/12/2019 Occupy Houston
27/31
27
4. Exemption7 GenerallyFOIAExemption 7 protectsfromdisclosurerecordsorinformation compiled for
lawenforcementpurposes, butonly to theextentthattheproduction ofsuch lawenforcement
recordsorinformation . . . .would causecertain enumerated harms. 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7). In
orderto withhold materialsproperly underExemption 7, an agency mustestablish both thatthe
recordsatissuewerecompiled forlawenforcementpurposes, and thatthematerialsatisfiesthe
requirementsofoneofthesix subpartsofExemption 7. SeePrattv. Webster, 673 F.2d 408, 413
(D.C. Cir. 1982). Thus, theD.C. Circuithasestablished atwo-part, objectivetestwhereby the
governmentcan showthatitsrecordsarelawenforcementrecords:
Prattrequires, first, thattheagency identify aparticularindividualoraparticularincidentastheobjectofitsinvestigation and specify
theconnection between that individual or incidentand a possiblesecurity risk or violation of federal law. The agency must then
demonstratethatthisrelationship isbased on information sufficient
to supportatleastacolorableclaimoftheconnectionsrationality.
This inquiry, while necessarily deferential, is not vacuous. Inorderto passtheFOIAExemption 7 threshold, . . . an agency must
establish thatitsinvestigatory activitiesarerealistically based on alegitimateconcern thatfederallawshavebeen ormay beviolated
orthatnationalsecurity may bebreached. Eitheroftheseconcerns
musthavesomeplausiblebasisand havearationalconnection totheobjectoftheagencysinvestigation.
King, 830 F.2d at229-30 (alterationsin original)(internalquotation marksand citations
omitted). Theupshotofthistwo-parttestisthat, in assessing whetherrecordswerecompiled for
lawenforcementpurposes, thefocusison howand underwhatcircumstancestherequested
fileswerecompiled, and whetherthefilessoughtrelateto anything thatcan fairly be
characterized asan enforcementproceeding. Jefferson v. DeptofJustice, OfficeofProfl
Responsibility, 284 F.3d 172, 176-77 (D.C. Cir. 2002)(internalquotation marksand citations
8/12/2019 Occupy Houston
28/31
28
omitted). Forinstance, recordscompiled in connection with investigationsthatfocusdirectly
on specificalleged illegalactswhich could resultin civilorcriminalsanctionsarerecords
compiled forlawenforcementpurposes, asdistinguished fromrecordscompiled in connection
with thegovernmentscustomary surveillanceofitsemployeesperformances. Id. at177
(citing RuralHousing Alliancev. DeptofAgric., 498 F.2d 73, 81 (D.C. Cir. 1974)). Itshould
benoted, however, thattheinvestigation need notlead to acriminalprosecution orother
enforcementproceeding in orderto satisfy thelawenforcementpurposecriterion. Pratt, 673
F.2d at421.
Mr. Shapiro contendsthattheHardy Declaration doesnotsatisfy eitherprong of
Pratt. HearguesthatFBIhasnotestablished thatitactually conducted an investigation into
criminalacts, specified theparticularindividualorincidentthatwastheobjectofits
investigation, adequately described thedocumentsitiswithholding underExemption 7, or
sufficiently connected thewithheld documentsto aspecificstatutethatpermitsFBIto collect
information and investigatecrimes. Mr. Shapiro furtherallegesthatFBIhasfailed to statea
rationalbasisforitsinvestigation orconnection to thewithheld documents, which hedescribes
asoverly-generalized and notparticular.
On thelatterpoint, theCourtagrees. Mr. Hardysavermentsaretoo generalized
forpurposesofExemption 7. Hestatesthatany responsiverecordslocated by FBIconcern
documentscompiled asaresultofassistanceFBIrendered to variousstateand locallaw
enforcementagencieswhich wereinvestigating potentialcriminalactivity by protestors[sic]
involved with theOccupymovementin Houston. Supp. Hardy Decl. 18. Further, Mr.
Hardy statesthatFBImaintained therecordspursuantto FBIsgeneralinvestigativeauthority
8/12/2019 Occupy Houston
29/31
29
per28 U.S.C. 533 and 534,and itslead rolein investigating terrorismand in thecollection
ofterrorismthreatinformation,Supp. Hardy Decl. 17 (internalquotation marksand citation
omitted). HeaddsthatFBI, acting in concertwith stateand locallawenforcementagencies,
compiled theserecordswhileassessing theprotestsforpotentialterroristthreats, including
domesticterrorismin violation of18 U.S.C. 2331, and othercriminalactivity, such as
advocating theoverthrowofthegovernmentin violation of18 U.S.C. 2385. Id. 18, 20. At
no pointdoesMr. Hardy supply specificfactsasto thebasisforFBIsbeliefthattheOccupy
protestorsmighthavebeen engaged in terroristicorothercriminalactivity. Cf. Quinon v. FBI,
86 F.3d 1222, 1229 (D.C. Cir. 1996)(rejecting FBIsinvocation ofExemption 7 wherethe
affidavitsproffered in supportofFBIsmotion forsummaryjudgmentsimply alludeto certain
events,which [FBI]fail[s]to describeorcharacterize). Neithertheword terrorismnorthe
phraseadvocating theoverthrowofthegovernmentaretalismanic, especially whereFBI
purportsto beinvestigating individualswho ostensibly areengaged in protected First
Amendmentactivity.
Accordingly, theHardy Declarationsdo notprovideenough specificity such that
theCourtcan say thatFBIhasestablished acolorableclaimofrationality,Pratt, 673 F.2d at
420, between theobjectofitsinvestigation and itsasserted lawenforcementduties, id.at421.
FBIwillbedirected to explain itsbasisforwithholding information pursuantto Exemption 7.
To theextentthatFBIbelievesitcannotbemorespecificwithoutrevealing thevery information
itwishesto protect, itmay requestan in camera reviewofthedocuments. SeeSimon v. Deptof
Justice, 980 F.2d 782, 784 (D.C. Cir. 1992)(In [the]unusualcircumstance, wheretheagency
cannotdescribethedocumentfully enough to showthatitisexemptfromdisclosurewithoutin
8/12/2019 Occupy Houston
30/31
30
thecourseofdoing so disclosing thevery information thatwarrantsexemption, thesolution is
forthecourtto reviewthedocumentin camera.).19
D. SegregabilityIfarecord containsinformation thatisexemptfromdisclosure, any reasonably
segregableinformation mustbereleased afterredacting theexemptportions, unlessthenon-
exemptportionsareinextricably intertwined with exemptportions. 5 U.S.C. 552(b);see
Trans-Pac. Policing Agreementv. U.S. CustomsServ., 177 F.3d 1022, 1028 (D.C. Cir. 1999). A
courterrsifitsimply approve[s]thewithholding ofan entiredocumentwithoutentering a
finding on segregability, orthelack thereof. Powellv. U.S. Bureau ofPrisons, 927 F.2d 1239,
1242 n.4 (D.C. Cir. 1991)(internalquotation marksand citation omitted). Mr. Shapiro argues
thatFBIfailed to releasereasonably segregablematerial.
Certain redacted materialswereprovided to Mr. Shapiro and othermaterialswere
withheld in full. SeeHardy Decl. 38 (FBIsoughtto achievemaximumdisclosureby
releasing allmaterialin thepublicdomain and allreasonably segregablematerial);id. 39-41
(explaining FBIsdescription ofdocumentsby Batesnumberand by theapplicableFOIA
exemption). Mr. Hardy explainsthatmaterialthatwaswithheld wasexemptfromdisclosureor
wasso intertwined with protected materialthatsegregation wasnotpossible. Hardy Decl. 43;
Supp. Hardy Decl. 13. Mr. Shapiro claimsthatFBIhasanalyze[d]thesegregability ofthe
redacted documents. . . in conclusory fashion. Oppn at32. TheCourtdisagrees. Ithas
reviewed FBIsdeclarationsand findsthatthesesubmissionsadequately specify which portions
19BecausetheCourtfindsthatFBIhasnotsatisfied thethreshold standard forExemption 7, it
willnotaddressatthistimeFBIsrelianceon Exemptions7(A), 7(C), 7(D), or7(E).
8/12/2019 Occupy Houston
31/31
31
ofthedocument[s]aredisclosableand which areallegedly exempt. SeeVaughn, 484 F.2d at
827.20
IV. CONCLUSION
Forthereasonssetforth above, DefendantsMotion to DismissorforSummary
Judgment, Dkt. 9, willbegranted in partand denied in part. TheCourtwillgrantMr. Shapiros
Motion to FileaSurreply, Dkt. 15, and deny asmoothisMotion forOralArgument, Dkt. 14. A
memorializing OrderaccompaniesthisOpinion.
/s/ROSEMARYM. COLLYER
Date:March 12, 2014 United StatesDistrictJudge
20On August30, 2013, onemonth afterbriefing in theinstantlitigation wascomplete, Mr.Shapiro filed aMotion forLeaveto FileSurreply. TheCourtwillgranttheMotion. Ithas
reviewed theSurreply and findsno need forafurtherresponsefromFBI.