TOWER v. UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION

Filing 36

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 08/28/2024. (lcjdb2)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ANDREW TOWER,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND
BORDER PROTECTION,

Civil Action No. 23-204 (JDB)

Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Andrew Tower filed this suit to compel U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(“CBP”) to comply with a records request made under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”),
5 U.S.C. § 552, and the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a. Tower, a CBP officer and a former
union member, seeks records related to CBP’s and his union’s actions after Tower resigned his
union membership. Before the Court are the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment.
Principally at issue is the propriety of CBP’s so-called Glomar response, in which it refused to
confirm or deny the existence of the requested records. Because the Court concludes that the
Glomar response was inappropriate, it will deny CBP’s motion, grant in part and deny in part
Tower’s motion, and direct CBP to search for and process the requested records in line with
standard FOIA procedures.
Background
Tower became a CBP officer in August 2019. Decl. of Officer Andrew Tower [ECF No.
28-2] (“Tower Decl.”) ¶ 2; see Tower’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [ECF No. 28-4]
(“Tower SUMF”) ¶ 1; Def.’s Resp. to Pl. SUMF [ECF No. 30-1] (“CBP Resp.”) ¶ 1. He also
became a member of the National Treasury Employees Union (“NTEU”) and authorized CBP to

1

begin deducting union dues from his pay. Tower SUMF ¶ 1; CBP Resp. ¶ 1. In September 2021,
Tower resigned his NTEU membership and deauthorized dues deductions. Tower SUMF ¶ 2;
CBP Resp. ¶ 2. Tower alleges that NTEU converted him to a “member not in good standing” on
February 11, 2022. Tower SUMF ¶ 3. He alleges that this status change triggered a duty on the
part of NTEU to promptly inform CBP that he was no longer a member in good standing, and a
corresponding duty on the part of CBP to cease deducting union dues from his pay. Id. ¶¶ 5–6.
But, he says, neither NTEU nor CBP initially notified him of the status change, and CBP continued
deducting union dues from his wages for more than six months after he became a “member not in
good standing.” Id. ¶¶ 4, 7. Eventually, Tower became aware of the situation and sought to learn
why he had been converted to a “member not in good standing,” how NTEU and CBP generally
respond to such a status change, and why CBP had continued deducting dues from his wages,
among other issues. Id. ¶ 8. He says he discussed these questions with Robert Holland, a fellow
CBP officer and the President of NTEU Chapter 173. Id. Tower understood Holland to have been
involved in changing Tower’s union membership status. Id. ¶ 10; see Tower Decl. ¶¶ 5, 7. 1
On November 7, 2022, Tower submitted a records request to CBP pursuant to FOIA and
the Privacy Act. Ex. 1 to Tower Decl. (“FOIA Req.”) at 1; see also Tower SUMF ¶ 9; CBP Resp.
¶ 9. He requested
a copy of documents containing information related to U.S. Customs and Border
Protection Officer / NTEU Chapter 173 President Robert Holland’s communication
sent and/or received between the dates of 11 February 2022 and present date
containing any variations of the following contents, names, or terms: Andrew
Tower, Tower, CBPO Tower, Officer Tower, Member not in good standing,
member not in good standing, Members not in good standing, members not in good

1
CBP levies a series of questionable objections to this portion of Tower’s statement of facts. See Def. Resp.
¶¶ 3–8. This material is largely contextual, but also bears on the “public interest” analysis discussed below. As to
that analysis, CBP credits Tower’s assertions about the nature of his concerns, see Def.’s Combined Reply in Further
Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. & Mem. in Opp’n to Pl.’s Cross-Mot. for Summ. J. [ECF No. 30] at 8 (citing Tower
Decl.), so the Court will do the same.

2

standing, good standing.
FOIA Req. at 1. CBP did not respond to this request within twenty business days. Tower SUMF
¶ 11; CBP Resp. ¶ 11; see 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A); 6 C.F.R. § 5.23(c).
On January 25, 2023, Tower filed the present suit. See Compl. [ECF No. 1]. His initial
complaint alleged that CBP had violated FOIA and the Privacy Act by not timely responding to
his records request. See id. ¶¶ 28–42.
On March 1, 2023, CBP responded to Tower’s FOIA request. Ex. B to Def.’s Mot. for
Summ. J. [ECF No. 25-4] (“FOIA Resp.”) at 1. CBP declined to produce any records. Id. The
response stated, in relevant part:
CBP has considered the foreseeable harm standard when reviewing the record set
and has applied the FOIA exemptions as required by the statute and the Attorney
General’s guidance. Any records that may be responsive would be withheld in full
pursuant to Title 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C). Additionally, you requested
emails from an outside entity and CBP is unable to search for emails outside the
government network.
FOIA Exemption 6 exempts from disclosure personnel or medical files and similar
files the release of which would cause a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal
privacy. This requires a balancing of the public’s right to disclosure against the
individual’s right to privacy. [The types of documents and/or information that we
have withheld may consist of birth certificates, naturalization certificates, driver’s
license, social security numbers, home addresses, dates of birth, or various other
documents and/or information belonging to a third party that are considered
personal.] The privacy interests of the individuals in the records you have requested
outweigh any minimal public interest in disclosure of the information. Any private
interest you may have in that information does not factor into the aforementioned
balancing test.
Exemption 7(C) protects records or information compiled for law enforcement
purposes that could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion
of personal privacy. This exemption takes particular note of the strong interests of
individuals, whether they are suspects, witnesses, or investigators, in not being
unwarrantably associated with alleged criminal activity. That interest extends to
persons who are not only the subjects of the investigation, but those who may have
their privacy invaded by having their identities and information about them
revealed in connection with an investigation. Based upon the traditional
recognition of strong privacy interest in law enforcement records, categorical

3

withholding of information that identifies third parties in law enforcement records
is ordinarily appropriate.
Id. at 1–2 (footnote omitted). The response did not address Tower’s Privacy Act request. See id.
Tower then filed a supplemental complaint, challenging CBP’s response and asserting
further FOIA and Privacy Act claims. See Suppl. Compl. [ECF No. 10] ¶¶ 22–45. CBP answered
the complaint and supplemental complaint. See Answer [ECF No. 13].
CBP moved for summary judgment, see Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. [ECF No. 25] (“Mot.”),
Tower filed a cross-motion and opposition, see Pl.’s Cross-Mot. for Summ. J. [ECF No. 28]; Pl.’s
Mem. of Law in Opp’n to Mot. and in Supp. of Pl.’s Cross-Mot. for Summ J. [ECF No. 28-1]
(“Cross-Mot. & Opp’n”), CBP filed an opposition and reply, see Def.’s Combined Reply in Further
Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. & Mem. in Opp’n to Pl.’s Cross-Mot. for Summ. J. [ECF No. 30]
(“CBP Opp’n & Reply”), and Tower filed a reply, see Pl.’s Reply in Supp. of Cross-Mot. for
Summ. J. [ECF No. 33] (“Tower Reply”). On the same day that CBP filed its motion for summary
judgment, it sent Tower a letter acknowledging that its prior response “did not specifically address
[his] Privacy Act request” and “clarify[ing]” that it had also considered this request and determined
that Tower was not entitled to the requested records under the Privacy Act. Ex. C. to Mot. [ECF
No. 25-5]. Tower subsequently withdrew his substantive Privacy Act claim, see Cross-Mot. &
Opp’n at 2, 14, leaving his FOIA claims as the focus of the parties’ dispute. The parties principally
clash over the propriety of CBP’s purported “Glomar response” to Tower’s request. The crossmotions are now fully briefed and ripe for resolution.
Legal Standard
“[T]he basic purpose of the Freedom of Information Act [is] to open agency action to the
light of public scrutiny, and thereby further the citizens’ right to be informed about what their
government is up to.” Bartko v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 898 F.3d 51, 66 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (internal

4

quotation marks omitted).

The statute “implements a general philosophy of full agency

disclosure.” People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Nat’l Insts. of Health, Dep’t of Health
& Hum. Servs. (“PETA”), 745 F.3d 535, 540 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (cleaned up). It requires federal
agencies, “upon any request” that “reasonably describes” the requested records and meets certain
procedural requirements, to “make the records promptly available.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A). “An
agency can withhold or redact documents only if the information falls within one of nine statutory
exemptions.” PETA, 745 F.3d at 540 (citing 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1)–(9)). The agency bears the
burden of establishing that one or more of these exemptions apply. See id.
Normally, to rely on a FOIA exemption the agency must “acknowledge the existence of
information responsive to [the] FOIA request and provide specific, non-conclusory justifications
for withholding that information.” Knight First Amend. Inst. at Columbia Univ. v. CIA, 11 F.4th
810, 813 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (quoting Roth v. DOJ, 642 F.3d 1161, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2011)). But in
some cases, “merely acknowledging the existence of responsive records would itself ‘cause harm
cognizable under [a] FOIA exception.’” PETA, 745 F.3d at 540 (quoting Wolf v. CIA, 473 F.3d
370, 374 (D.C. Cir. 2007)). In such cases, the agency may issue a so-called Glomar response that
refuses to confirm or deny the existence of the requested records. See id. 2 A Glomar response “is
valid ‘if the fact of the existence or nonexistence of agency records [itself] falls within a FOIA
exemption.’” Id. (quoting Wolf, 473 F.3d at 374). The agency “bears the burden to sustain a
Glomar response,” and the “general exemption review standards established in non-Glomar cases”
govern the inquiry. Knight First Amend. Inst., 11 F.4th at 813 (internal quotation marks omitted).

2
The Glomar response “takes its name from the CIA’s refusal to confirm or deny the existence of records
about the Hughes Glomar Explorer, a ship used in a classified CIA project to raise a sunken Soviet submarine from
the floor of the Pacific Ocean to recover the missiles, codes, and communications equipment onboard for analysis by
United States military and intelligence experts.” PETA, 745 F.3d at 540 (cleaned up); see generally Phillippi v. CIA,
655 F.2d 1325 (D.C. Cir. 1981).

5

A valid Glomar response relieves the agency of the duty to search for responsive documents.
PETA, 745 F.3d at 540.
Courts may grant summary judgment to the agency “based on agency affidavits explaining
the basis for the [Glomar] response.” Id. Such affidavits “must contain ‘reasonable specificity of
detail rather than merely conclusory statements’ and cannot be ‘called into question by
contradictory evidence in the record.’” Id. (quoting Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. Nat’l Sec. Agency,
678 F.3d 926, 931 (D.C. Cir. 2012)).
Analysis
I.

Glomar Response
CBP maintains that it issued a proper Glomar response based on FOIA Exemption 6. See

Mot. at 1.3 Exemption 6 applies to “personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of
which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6).
CBP argues that lower-level CBP employees, by virtue of their government employment and
CBP’s law enforcement mission, have a significant privacy interest in preventing the public
disclosure of their identities. See Mot. at 7–8. Because Tower requested documents “related to
[CBP] Officer / NTEU Chapter 173 President Robert Holland’s communication[s],” CBP contends
that acknowledging the existence of any such documents would necessarily confirm that Holland
is indeed a CBP officer. Id. at 10. Thus, CBP reasons, such an acknowledgement falls within
Exemption 6 and a Glomar response was appropriate.
Tower challenges CBP’s position on two grounds. First, he argues that CBP did not in fact
invoke Glomar because CBP’s response confirmed the existence of responsive documents. See
Cross-Mot. & Opp’n at 8–10. Second, he contends that any Glomar response would fail because
CBP’s initial response to Tower’s records request invoked both Exemption 6 and Exemption 7(C), but CBP
now relies solely on the former. See FOIA Resp. at 1–2; Mot. at 3 n.4.
3

6

the widespread public disclosure of Holland’s status as a CBP officer undermines any privacy
interest in that fact. See id. at 10–13. The Court considers these arguments in turn.
A. Invocation
Tower first contends that CBP’s response to his records request was not a proper Glomar
response. He points to language that can be read to suggest that CBP conducted a search and
acknowledged the existence of responsive documents: CBP “considered the foreseeable harm
standard when reviewing the record set” and, in relation to Exemption 6, referred to “[t]he types
of documents and/or information that we have withheld.” FOIA Resp. at 1 (emphases added).
Thus, Tower says, CBP’s response was not a Glomar response but rather a “categorical denial,” to
which different standards may apply. See Cross-Mot. & Opp’n at 8–10, 13–14. CBP counters
that—in context—“reviewing the record set” simply means considering the type of records sought
by Tower to determine whether an exemption applied. CBP Opp’n & Reply at 10. CBP further
contends that it never confirmed the existence of any responsive documents and that its response
that “[a]ny records that may be responsive would be withheld in full” illustrates as much. FOIA
Resp. at 1 (emphasis added); see CBP Opp’n & Reply at 10. And CBP argues that it has
“consistently maintained that it did not conduct a search,” see CBP Opp’n & Reply at 10—a
representation with which Tower appears to agree, see Suppl. Compl. ¶¶ 3, 15.
CBP’s response is not a model of clarity, and both parties’ readings are plausible. Because
the Court concludes that any Glomar response would be unavailing, it will assume—favorably to
CBP—that the agency’s response was in fact a Glomar response.
B. Propriety
CBP’s Glomar response is valid if the fact of the existence or nonexistence of records itself
falls within Exemption 6. See PETA, 745 F.3d at 540. Again, Exemption 6 applies to “personnel

7

and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted
invasion of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6). “The primary purpose of this exemption is
to protect individuals from the injury and embarrassment that can result from the unnecessary
disclosure of personal information.” Prison Legal News v. Samuels, 787 F.3d 1142, 1147 (D.C.
Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted).
To assess an agency’s invocation of Exemption 6, courts first consider whether the
requested information is “personnel, medical, or similar files covered by [the exemption].” Am.
Immigr. Laws. Ass’n v. Exec. Off. for Immigr. Rev. (“AILA”), 830 F.3d 667, 673 (D.C. Cir. 2016)
(internal quotation marks omitted). If so, courts then determine whether disclosure of the
information at issue “would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”
5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6); see also AILA, 830 F.3d at 673. This determination involves two steps.
Courts first ask whether “disclosure would compromise a substantial, as opposed to a de minimis,
privacy interest.” AILA, 830 F.3d at 674 (internal quotation marks omitted). If that requirement
is met, courts then “weigh the privacy interest at stake against the public interest in the release of
the records.” Id. at 674 (internal quotation marks omitted). “The focus of the public interest
analysis is the citizens’ right to know what their government is up to.” Prison Legal News, 787
F.3d at 1147 (internal quotation marks omitted). “Neither the identity of the requesting party nor
the purpose for which the party intends to use a document is relevant” to this analysis. Id.
The threshold requirement is not at issue here, as Tower does not dispute that names can
be “similar files” within the meaning of Exemption 6. See Cross-Mot. & Opp’n at 10–13; see also
Prison Legal News, 787 F.3d at 1147 (“Exemption 6 covers not just files, but also bits of personal
information, such as names and addresses, the release of which would create a palpable threat to
privacy.” (cleaned up)). Nor does Tower meaningfully dispute that lower-level CBP officers have

8

some degree of privacy interest in their names. See Cross-Mot. & Opp’n at 13 n.17 (expressing
doubt on this point but noting that the issue is “not squarely presented here”). 4 Rather, Tower
argues that any privacy interest Holland may have in his identity as a CBP officer is significantly
diminished by Holland’s widespread public disclosure of that very fact. See id. at 10–13. Tower
points to a variety of public materials identifying Holland as a CBP officer, including:
•

A public NTEU bulletin discussing COVID-19 vaccination that cites remarks
by Holland and identifies him as a CBP officer and NTEU Chapter 173
President. Ex. 1 to Decl. of David R. Dorey [ECF No. 28-3] (“Dorey Decl.”)
at 4.

•

A message from Holland on NTEU’s public website that identifies him as
NTEU Chapter 173 President and indicates an association with “Chapter 173 |
CBP Detroit.” Ex. 2 to Dorey Decl. at 1–2.

•

A blog post on NTEU’s public website discussing Holland’s contact with
members regarding their “NTEU-CBP contract.” Ex. 3 to Dorey Decl. at 1.

•

Another public NTEU bulletin that identifies Holland, of “Chapter 173, CBP
Detroit” as the recipient of an award for exemplary union leadership. Ex. 4 to
Dorey Decl. at 3.

•

A press release from the leadership of the Senate Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs Committee that quotes Holland, in his capacity as
President of NTEU Local 173, discussing CBP staffing shortages. Ex. 5 to
Dorey Decl. at 3.

•

A page on NTEU’s website with nineteen videos of Holland discussing various
topics relevant to Local 173 members. Ex. 6 to Dorey Decl. at 1–3; see 173TV,
NTEU
Chapter
173,
http://www.nteu173.com/173-tv.html
[https://perma.cc/52GN-TPCJ].

•

A post on the “NTEU Chapter 173 CBP Detroit” public Facebook page
identifying Holland in his CBP uniform. Ex. 2 to Tower Decl. at 1.

While this inquiry is context-specific, at least two judges in this District have concluded that CBP officers
have privacy interests in their identities. See Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 405 F. Supp.
3d 127, 143–44 (D.D.C. 2019); Sabra v. U.S. Customs & Border Prot., Civ. A. No. 20-681 (CKK), 2023 WL 1398473,
at *8 (D.D.C. Jan. 31, 2023).
4

9

The Court agrees that these affirmative public disclosures significantly diminish any
privacy interest on the part of Holland in his identity as a CBP officer. That conclusion is firmly
grounded in D.C. Circuit precedent. Consider Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington
v. U.S. Department of Justice, 746 F.3d 1082 (D.C. Cir. 2014). That case involved a FOIA request
seeking files related to the FBI’s purported investigation of Tom DeLay—the former Majority
Leader of the House of Representatives—in relation to a public corruption scandal. Id. at 1087.
The D.C. Circuit considered, inter alia, the applicability of Exemption 7(C), which relates to law
enforcement records and provides greater privacy protection than Exemption 6. See id. at 1091–
96, 1091 n.2. The court reasoned:
In August 2010, DeLay made public statements confirming the fact that he had
been, but was no longer, under investigation. He explained the extent of his
cooperation with the investigation and announced the DOJ had decided not to
charge him. DeLay’s obvious privacy interest in keeping secret the fact that he was
the subject of an FBI investigation was diminished by his well-publicized
announcement of that very fact. Because DeLay’s public statements confirmed he
had been under investigation, the FBI’s acknowledgment that it had responsive
records would not itself cause harm by confirming that fact, rendering a Glomar
response inappropriate.
Id. at 1091–92 (citations omitted).
Other cases in this circuit reflect similar logic. See Kimberlin v. DOJ, 139 F.3d 944, 949
(D.C. Cir. 1998) (“[A disciplined AUSA’s] statement to the press undoubtedly does diminish his
interest in privacy [for purposes of Exemption 7(C)]: the public already knows who he is, what he
was accused of, and that he received a relatively mild sanction.”); Nation Mag., Washington
Bureau v. U.S. Customs Serv., 71 F.3d 885, 896 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (“[Ross] Perot’s decision to
bring information connecting himself with such efforts into the public domain differentiates his
privacy interest from the interest of [those] who did not voluntarily divulge their identities; these
public disclosures effectively waive Perot’s right [under Exemption 7(C)] to redaction of his name

10

from documents on events that he has publicly discussed.”); see also, e.g., Woodward v. U.S.
Marshals Serv., Civ. A. No. 18-1249 (RC), 2022 WL 296171, at *3 (D.D.C. Feb. 1, 2022); Lindsey
v. FBI, 271 F. Supp. 3d 1, 8 (D.D.C. 2017).
Here, Holland appears to be a vocal, public advocate for the CBP officers in his local union
chapter. His public presence extends across a variety of media, even including a feature in a U.S.
Senate press release. All of that is to be commended. But these affirmative public disclosures of
Holland’s identity as a CBP officer seriously undermine CBP’s contention that Holland has a
meaningful privacy interest in that very fact.
CBP resists this conclusion. CBP insists that rather than challenging the applicability of
Exemption 6 on the merits, Tower is (unsuccessfully) invoking the “official acknowledgment”
doctrine, under which a plaintiff “must identify information in the public domain that (1) matches
the information requested, (2) is as specific, and (3) has been made public through an official and
documented disclosure [by the agency itself].” Knight First Amend. Inst., 11 F.4th at 815 (internal
quotation marks omitted); see id. at 816; CBP Opp’n & Reply at 3, 14–16. The Court disagrees.
Tower’s challenge is squarely directed at the weight of Holland’s privacy interest for purposes of
the Exemption 6 analysis. See Cross-Mot. & Opp’n at 10–13; Tower Reply at 6 & n.5. And the
official acknowledgement doctrine operates to waive an agency’s right to withhold “otherwise
exempt information.” Knight First Amend. Inst., 11 F.4th at 813 (emphasis added and internal
quotation marks omitted); see also, e.g., Wolf, 473 F.3d at 378 (“[W]hen information has been
officially acknowledged, its disclosure may be compelled even over an agency’s otherwise valid
exemption claim.” (emphasis added and internal quotation marks omitted)). That is to say, the
official acknowledgement doctrine generally represents a mechanism for overcoming the normal
exemption analysis to plaintiffs’ benefit—not supplanting it to plaintiffs’ detriment.

11

The Court acknowledges that the case law does not always clearly distinguish between the
official acknowledgement doctrine, the related “public domain” doctrine, see, e.g., Cottone v.
Reno, 193 F.3d 550, 555–56 (D.C. Cir. 1999), and the personal public disclosure doctrine
discussed above. But while there may be borderline cases, this is not one of them. Holland’s
repeated public disclosure of his identity as a CBP officer falls squarely within the third line of
D.C. Circuit precedent. And the affirmative nature and extent of the public disclosure here
significantly diminishes any associated privacy right. Cf. U.S. Dep’t of Def. v. Fed. Lab. Rels.
Auth., 510 U.S. 487, 500 (1994) (noting that the mere fact that information “may be available to
the public in some form” does not necessarily “dissolve” a privacy right).
Tower maintains that the Exemption 6 analysis should end there. He asserts that, given the
weak privacy interest at issue, CBP cannot even clear the first step of the two-step analysis—that
is, show that disclosure “would compromise a substantial, as opposed to a de minimis, privacy
interest.” AILA, 830 F.3d at 674 (internal quotation marks omitted); see Tower Cross-Mot. &
Opp’n at 12 n.15. True, the standard is not particularly demanding: a substantial privacy interest
is “anything greater than a de minimis privacy interest.” Multi Ag Media LLC v. Dep’t of Agric.,
515 F.3d 1224, 1229–30 (D.C. Cir. 2008). But where this standard is not met, FOIA requires
disclosure regardless of any balancing against the public interest. Id. at 1229; see also, e.g., AILA,
830 F.3d at 673–74; Bloomgarden v. Nat’l Archives & Recs. Admin., 798 F. App’x 674, 676 (D.C.
Cir. 2020) (unpublished).
Even assuming—favorably to CBP—that Holland’s privacy interest clears the
“substantial” threshold, this interest would be outweighed by the public interest in disclosure of
the requested records. See AILA, 830 F.3d at 673–74. To be sure, Tower appears to seek the
records largely in relation to his personal dispute with NTEU and CBP regarding the continued

12

deduction of union fees from his wages. But this personal motivation is largely irrelevant to the
public interest analysis, which focuses on whether the requested records shed light on “what the[]
government is up to.” Prison Legal News, 787 F.3d at 1147 (internal quotation marks omitted).
The Court agrees with Tower that the public has an interest in understanding how CBP interacts
with its employees’ union—and particularly why CBP allegedly continued deducting union dues
after one of its employees resigned his union membership. See Tower Reply at 7–8 (arguing, inter
alia, that disclosure would “shed light on CBP’s performance of its statutory duty not to interfere
with an employee in the exercise of his right to refrain from labor union activity”). 5 And the Court
concludes that this public interest outweighs the privacy interest at issue—which, as discussed
above, is quite weak.
Hence, disclosure of the fact that Holland is a CBP officer would not “constitute a clearly
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6), and Exemption 6—the basis for
CBP’s Glomar response—does not apply. CBP’s Glomar response was therefore improper.
This does not necessarily mean that CBP must produce the requested records in full. “A
court’s rejection of an agency’s Glomar response does not mandate subsequent disclosure of the
records themselves, but requires the agency to process the records in the usual manner required by
FOIA; the agency must inform the requester of the number of records and either release the records
or justify its withholding pursuant to FOIA’s exemptions.” Smith v. CIA, 246 F. Supp. 3d 28, 31–

CBP invokes U.S. Department of Defense v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 510 U.S. 487 (1994). See
CBP Opp’n & Reply at 8. But CBP does not offer much affirmative argument as to that case’s relevance, and the
Court struggles to discern any. The case involved a FOIA request brought by unions to obtain federal employees’
home addresses. 510 U.S. at 489. The Supreme Court reasoned, in relevant part, that the “public interest supporting
disclosure” was “negligible” because “[d]isclosure of the addresses might allow the unions to communicate more
effectively with employees, but it would not appreciably further the citizens’ right to be informed about what their
government is up to.” Id. at 497 (internal quotation marks omitted). Put differently, “such disclosure would reveal
little or nothing about the employing agencies or their activities.” Id. (emphasis added). That is not true here, where
Tower seeks records bearing on his “employing agenc[y’s] . . . activities” and its interaction with his former union.
5

13

32 (D.D.C. 2017); see also Heritage Found. v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., Civ. A. No. 23-1148 (JEB),
2024 WL 1856418, at *14 (D.D.C. Apr. 29, 2024).
II.

Other Issues
The only question before the Court bearing on Tower’s entitlement to the requested records

is the propriety of CBP’s Glomar response, discussed above. Yet the parties devote a significant
portion of their briefing to other issues. Tower seeks summary judgment on (1) his claims that
CBP violated FOIA and its own Privacy Act regulations by failing to timely respond to his initial
request (Counts One and Two) and (2) his claim that CBP wrongfully withheld documents,
apparently on the grounds that CBP has withdrawn its reliance on Exemption 7(C) as a basis for
withholding (Count Four). See Cross-Mot. & Opp’n at 6–7; Tower Reply at 1–4. CBP maintains
that these claims are all moot—but, in the same breath, argues for summary judgment on the
substantive Privacy Act claim that Tower withdrew (Count Five). See CBP Opp’n & Reply at 16–
20. As best the Court can tell, all these arguments have little to do with Tower’s access to records
and much to do with positioning the parties for hypothetical fee proceedings. Indeed, Tower
explicitly frames many of his arguments in these terms. See, e.g., Tower Reply at 2–3.
The Court begins with Tower’s timeliness claims. Agencies must generally respond to a
FOIA request within twenty business days, see 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6), and Privacy Act requests to
CBP are subject to the same timeline, see 6 C.F.R. § 5.23(c). These requirements do not appear
to have been met here: Tower submitted his records request on November 7, 2022, but CBP did
not respond until March 1, 2023. See CBP Resp. ¶ 9; FOIA Resp. at 1. 6 But CBP did respond—
and so contends that any dispute over the timing of this response is now moot. The Court agrees.
Once an agency has responded to a records request, “the timeliness of that determination is no
Indeed, CBP did not specifically respond to the Privacy Act portion of the request until November 28, 2023.
Ex. C to Mot.
6

14

longer a live controversy fit for judicial review.” Muttitt v. Dep’t of State, 926 F. Supp. 2d 284,
296 (D.D.C. 2013); see also, e.g., Atkins v. DOJ, 946 F.2d 1563, 1563 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (per
curiam) (unpublished) (“The question whether [the agency] complied with [FOIA’s] time
limitations in responding to [the] request is moot because [the agency] has now responded to this
request.”); Citizens for Resp. & Ethics in Washington v. FEC, 839 F. Supp. 2d 17, 24 (D.D.C.
2011) (similar), rev’d on other grounds, 711 F.3d 180 (D.C. Cir. 2013); Jud. Watch v. Rossotti,
285 F. Supp. 2d 17, 26 (D.D.C. 2003) (similar); Landmark Legal Found. v. EPA, 272 F. Supp. 2d
59, 68 (D.D.C. 2003) (similar). 7 Hence, the Court will deny Tower’s motion for summary
judgment as to his timeliness claims.
Any disputes related to Exemption 7(C), on which CBP no longer relies, or Tower’s
withdrawn Privacy Act claim also appear to be moot. “Federal courts may not decide questions
that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before them or give opinion[s] advising what
the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts.” Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165, 172 (2013)
(alteration in original; internal quotation marks omitted).

Courts routinely conclude that

withdrawn claims and arguments are moot. See, e.g., Arave v. Hoffman, 552 U.S. 117, 118 (2008).
Hence, the Court will not grant judgment to either party at this time. The parties are free to renew
their arguments to the extent these issues resurface or are relevant for any eventual fee proceedings.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will deny CBP’s motion in full, grant Tower’s crossmotion insofar as it challenges the propriety of CBP’s Glomar response but otherwise deny it, and

7
Tower’s reliance on Tijerina v. Walters, 821 F.2d 789 (D.C. Cir. 1987), is misplaced. The Tijerina court
reasoned that an agency’s release of “all nonexempt materials” rendered the plaintiffs’ FOIA claims moot because the
court “ha[d] no further judicial function to perform.” Id. at 799 (internal quotation marks omitted). The court did not,
as Tower contends, hold that all FOIA claims—including timeliness claims—“only” become moot when an agency
has produced all nonexempt material. Tower Reply at 1.

15

direct CBP to process the requested records in line with FOIA’s standard procedures. An
accompanying Order will issue on this date.
/s/
JOHN D. BATES
United States District Judge

Dated: August 28, 2024

16