occupy houston

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.


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.


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


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


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


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.


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).


8/31

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).


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


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


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


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-


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).


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).


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.


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


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.


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).


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


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,


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.


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


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).


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


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.


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).


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


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


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


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).


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.

occupy houston

Documents