GABRION v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al

Filing 53

ENTRY ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - This cause is before the Court on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. The motions are fully briefed, and the Court, being duly advised, GRANTS the Defendants' Motion (Dk t. No. 46 ) and DENIES the Plaintiff's motion (Dkt. No. 39 ) for the reasons set forth below. The Court finds that the BOP properly withheld all of the groups that remain in dispute. In camera review is not required, as the Defendants have provided sufficient detail as to each Group to allow the Court to rule without reviewing the documents. (See Order.) Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 9/21/2016. (BRR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
MARVIN GABRION,
Plaintiff,
vs.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE and UNITED STATES BUREAU
OF PRISONS,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Cause No. 2:15-cv-24-WTL-DKL

ENTRY ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This cause is before the Court on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. The
motions are fully briefed, and the Court, being duly advised, GRANTS the Defendants’ Motion
(Dkt. No. 46) and DENIES the Plaintiff’s motion (Dkt. No. 39) for the reasons set forth below.
I.

STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) provides that summary judgment is appropriate “if
the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the
admissible evidence presented by the non-moving party must be believed, and all reasonable
inferences must be drawn in the non-movant’s favor. Zerante v. DeLuca, 555 F.3d 582, 584 (7th
Cir. 2009) (“We view the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw all
reasonable inferences in that party’s favor.”). When the Court reviews cross-motions for
summary judgment, as is the case here, “we construe all inferences in favor of the party against
whom the motion under consideration is made.” Speciale v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield Ass’n, 538
F.3d 615, 621 (7th Cir. 2008) (quotation omitted). “‘[W]e look to the burden of proof that each

party would bear on an issue of trial.’” Diaz v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 499 F.3d 640, 643 (7th
Cir. 2007) (quoting Santaella v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 123 F.3d 456, 461 (7th Cir. 1997)).
However, a party who bears the burden of proof on a particular issue may not rest on its
pleadings, but must show what evidence it has that there is a genuine issue of material fact that
requires trial. Johnson v. Cambridge Indus., Inc., 325 F.3d 892, 901 (7th Cir. 2003). Finally, the
non-moving party bears the burden of specifically identifying the relevant evidence of record,
and “the court is not required to scour the record in search of evidence to defeat a motion for
summary judgment.” Ritchie v. Glidden Co., 242 F.3d 713, 723 (7th Cir. 2001).
II.

BACKGROUND

On December 31, 2012, attorneys for Plaintiff Marvin Gabrion, an inmate who was
sentenced to death in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, filed
on his behalf with the BOP a request for records relating to information maintained during his
custody at USP Terre Haute. The BOP sent acknowledgment letters to Margaret O’Donnell, one
of Gabrion’s attorneys, on January 17, 2013, and January 29, 2013. Gabrion filed the instant civil
action in January 2015. It was not until February 23, 2015, – after the filing of the instant lawsuit
– that the BOP finally provided records and other materials responsive to Gabrion’s December
31, 2012, FOIA request. The BOP provided additional material on February 28, 2015; March 31,
2015; April 17, 2015; August 27, 2015; and October 15, 2015. This material totaled 4,283 pages
of documents and recordings of 18 telephone calls in full and 1,700 pages of documents in part.
The groups of documents that remain at issue and the reasons given for withholding them as
described in the Vaughn index are as follows:
Group
Number
10

Pages

Description

Exemption

Justification

1

Incident Report issued
to third-party inmate

(b)(6)
(b)(7)(C)

Exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(c)
were applied to withhold

2

regarding incident in the
USP Terre Haute
Special Confinement
Unit on August 30,
2007.
11

13

19

Staff Injury Assessment
and Photographs, dated
May 25, 2009.

(b)(6)
(b)(7)(C)

A

1

(b)(6)
(b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)(E)
(b)(7)(F)

B

1

C

2

D

1

Correspondence dated
July 20, 2009, from
third party, noninmate
addressed to USP Terre
Haute Counselor Bruce
Ryherd regarding
communications with
inmate Gabrion and
placement on his
approved telephone list.
Correspondence dated
November 7, 2005,
from USP Terre Haute
Warden Mark Bezy to
third party, non-inmate
regarding
correspondence
privileges with inmate
Gabrion.
Correspondence dated
October 24, 2005, from
third party, non-inmate
regarding
correspondence
privileges with inmate
Gabrion.
Correspondence dated
January 16, 2007, from
a third party, noninmate addressed to
USP Terre Haute
Counselor B. Ryherd
3

information regarding the BOP’s
discipline of third-party inmates.
Disclosure of this information
would be an unwarranted
invasion of the other individual’s
privacy.
Exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C)
were applied to withhold the
personal information, description
of injuries and images of staff.
Disclosure of this information
would be an unwarranted
invasion of another individual’s
privacy.
Exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C)
were applied to withhold these
records as they pertain solely to
third-party individuals.
Exemptions (b)(7)(E) and
(b)(7)(F) were also applied as
disclosure of these documents
would reveal law enforcement
techniques, procedures and
guidelines in monitoring and
classifying inmates and could
reasonably be expected to
endanger the life or physical
safety of third-party individuals if
disclosed.

E

F

2

G

1

H

14

1

1

44

regarding placement on
inmate Gabrion’s
approved telephone list.
Correspondence dated
January 15, 2007, from
a third party, noninmate addressed to
USP Terre Haute Unit
Manager R. White
regarding placement on
inmate Gabrion’s
approved telephone list.
Correspondence dated
March 21, 2002, from
USP Terre Haute
Warden Keith E. Olson
to third party,
noninmate regarding
communications
between third parties
and inmate Gabrion.
Correspondence dated
July 7, 2003, from USP
Terre Haute Warden
Keith E. Olson to a
thirdparty, non-inmate
regarding visitation
privileges.
Partial correspondence
dated June 25, 2003,
from a third party,
noninmate addressed to
USP Terre Haute
Warden Keith E. Olson.
Inmate Population
Monitoring Records
contained in inmate
Gabrion’s Special
Investigative Services
File, dated January 30,
2013, June 10, 200?
[sic], and May 28, 2009.

4

(b)(6)
(b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)(E)
(b)(7)(F)

Exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C)
were applied to withhold
information pertaining to thirdparty individuals. Disclosure of
this information would be an
unwarranted invasion of other
individuals’ privacy Exemptions
(b)(7)(E) and (b)(7)(F) were
applied to withhold monitoring,
classification and management
techniques and determinations
regarding inmate Gabrion,

15

6

Inmate Population
Monitoring Records
contained in inmate
Gabrion’s Special
Investigative Services
file, dated September
12, 2001.

(b)(7)(E)
(b)(7)(F)

17

5

Program Forms
contained in inmate
Gabrion’s Central File
dated January 30, 2013.

(b)(7)(E)
(b)(7)(F)

18

16

Inmate Population
Monitoring Records

(b)(6)
(b)(7)(C)
5

including the information relied
upon to make those
determinations. Disclosure of
these records would endanger the
life or physical safety of inmate
Gabrion, third-party inmates and
staff and enable inmates to
circumvent and/or nullify the
effectiveness of this monitoring
and classification procedure.
Exemption (b)(7)(E) was applied
to withhold law enforcement
techniques used to manage and
monitor the inmate population.
Disclosure of these records would
enable inmates to circumvent
and/or nullify the effectiveness of
this technique. Exemption
(b)(7)(F) was applied to withhold
the programming assignments the
BOP uses to classify and monitor
groups of inmates. Although the
FOIA requestor is seeking these
records on inmate Gabrion’s
behalf and with his consent, the
programming assignment is
sensitive information that, if
released while inmate Gabrion
remains incarcerated, is
nonetheless likely to endanger his
life or physical safety if known
by other individuals.
Exemption (b)(7)(E) and
(b)(7)(F) were applied to
withhold these records used by
the BOP to monitor and classify
inmate Gabrion. Disclosure of
these records would enable
inmates to circumvent and/or
nullify the effectiveness of this
monitoring and classification
system and would endanger the
life or physical safety of inmate
Gabrion and staff.
Exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C)
were applied to these records to

contained in inmate
(b)(7)(E)
Gabrion’s Special
(b)(7)(F)
Investigative Services
file, dated May 28,
2009 and June 10, 2009.

19

20

5

Central Inmate
Monitoring (CIM)
Clearance and
Separatee Data for
Marvin Gabrion, dated
May 25, 2009.

(b)(6)
(b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)(E)
(b)(7)(F)

May 28, 2009 video
recording in the USP
Terre Haute Special
Confinement Unit
Visiting Room.

(b)(6)
(b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)(E)
(b)(7)(F)

6

withhold personal information of
third parties. Disclosure of this
information would be an
unwarranted invasion of the other
individuals’ privacy. Exemptions
(b)(7)(E) and (b)(7)(F) were
applied to withhold techniques
and procedures used by the BOP
to monitor and track inmates
subject to specific reporting
requirements. Disclosure of these
records would enable inmates to
circumvent monitoring and would
endanger the life or physical
safety of third parties.
These records were withheld
under (b)(6), (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(E)
and (b)(7)(F). The withheld
information consists of inmate
names, register numbers, and
staff comments regarding the
BOP’s incarceration and
management of those inmates.
The BOP has determined that
these individuals need to be
separated from inmate Gabrion.
Release of this information would
constitute an unwarranted
invasion into third-party inmates’
privacy interests, would reveal
law enforcement techniques or
procedures, the disclosure of
which would reasonably be
expected to risk circumvention,
and is likely to endanger the life
or physical safety of the thirdparties if known by inmate
Gabrion or other individuals due
to the same reasons underlying
their separatee status.
Exemption (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C)
were applied to withhold the
images of third-party individuals
who were recorded in this video,
as disclosure would be an
unwarranted invasion of their

privacy. Exemptions (b)(7)(E)
and (b)(7)(F) were also applied to
withhold the video, as disclosure
would reveal law enforcement
procedures and techniques
including, visiting room camera
location, staff response time and
procedures, and locations not
recorded by the visiting room
camera, which, if disclosed, could
reasonably be expected to risk
circumvention or endanger the
life or physical safety of third
parties.

Dkt. No. 36-1.
III.

DISCUSSION

The Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) generally contemplates a policy of broad
disclosure of government documents and serves the basic purpose of “ensur[ing] an informed
citizenry, vital to the functioning of a democratic society.” NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co.,
437 U.S. 214, 242 (1978). FOIA’s purpose is to guarantee “that the Government’s activities be
opened to the sharp eye of public scrutiny, not that information about private citizens that
happens to be in the warehouse of the Government be so disclosed.” U.S. Dep’t of Justice v.
Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749, 774 (1989).1 Further, Congress has
structured various exemptions from the FOIA’s disclosure requirements in order to protect
certain interests in privacy and confidentiality.

1

At the outset, the Court notes that, while it appreciates counsel’s candor in explaining
the goal of this litigation – to obtain evidence relevant to an evaluation of Gabrion’s mental
condition – “neither an individual’s identity nor his intended use for the documents is relevant to
a FOIA request.” Solar Sources, Inc. v. United States, 142 F.3d 1033, 1041 (7th Cir. 1998).
7

Because disclosure is the “dominant objective” of FOIA, the Court narrowly construes
FOIA Exemptions. Patterson v. I.R.S., 56 F.3d 832, 835 (7th Cir. 1995); see also U.S. Dep’t of
Justice v. Landano, 508 U.S. 165, 181 (1993). As such, the government agency has the burden to
support its decision to deny the FOIA request. Patterson, 56 F.3d at 836. The court must
determine de novo whether the government has satisfied its burden. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B). In
doing so, the court must give “meaningful reach and application” to the exemptions while also
taking care to construe them narrowly, given the Act’s general policy of disclosure. Solar
Sources, Inc. v. United States, 142 F.3d 1033, 1037 (7th Cir. 1998) (internal citations omitted).
Because FOIA cases usually involve only a dispute over how the law is applied to the withheld
records, rather than any factual dispute, whether the government is justified in invoking an
exemption is typically decided at the summary judgment phase. See, e.g., id. at 1036; Wright v.
Occupational Safety & Health Admin., 822 F.2d 642, 644 (7th Cir. 1987). The court may grant
summary judgment in favor of the agency in a FOIA case “only if ‘the agency affidavits describe
the documents withheld and the justifications for nondisclosure in enough detail and with
sufficient specificity to demonstrate that material withheld is logically within the domain of the
exemption claimed.’” Patterson, 56 F.3d at 836 (quoting PHE, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 983
F.2d 248, 250 (D.C. Cir. 1993)). Further, “[w]ithout evidence of bad faith, the veracity of the
government’s submissions regarding reasons for withholding the documents should not be
questioned.” Matter of Wade, 969 F.2d 241, 246 (7th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted).
The Defendants have asserted a privacy interest pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 6 and 7(C)
for Groups 10, 11, 13, 14, 18, 19, and 20. Groups 10, 11, and 13 were withheld in full, while
Groups 14, 18, 19, and 20 were withheld in part. Additionally, the Defendants have asserted

8

exemptions under 7(E) and 7(F) for Groups 13, 14, 18, 19, and 20. 2 The Court notes that “[i]f the
Court determines that information properly is withheld under one exemption, it need not
determine whether another exemption applies to that same information.” Coleman v. Lappin, 607
F. Supp. 2d 15, 23 (D.D.C. 2009) (citing Simon v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 980 F.2d 782, 785 (D.C.
Cir. 1992)).
Generally, Exemption 7 shelters “records or information compiled for law enforcement
purposes,” when the production of the information may result in one of six enumerated harms. 5
U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A)-(F). As such, the withholding agency must prove both the threshold law
enforcement purpose plus the danger that at least one of the specified harms may result from
disclosure. See FBI v. Abramson, 456 U.S. 615, 622 (1982). Consistent with BOP’s mission,
which includes “provid[ing] for the safekeeping, care, and subsistence of all persons charged
with or convicted of offenses against the United States,” 18 U.S.C. § 4042(a)(2), the BOP is
considered a law enforcement agency. An employee of the Bureau of Prisons is a law
enforcement officer. 5 U.S.C. ' 8401(17)(D)(i). Part of the BOP’s law enforcement mission is to
protect inmates, staff, and the community. See 18 U.S.C. § 4042(a)(1)-(3).
Exemptions 6 and 7(C) protect against disclosure of information that would result in an
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(b)(6), (b)(7)(C). Exemption 7(C)
permits the withholding of documents that were compiled for law enforcement purposes where
release “could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal
privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C). Exemption 6 states that FOIA does not apply to matters that
are “personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a

2

The Defendants have submitted a declaration from Kara Christenson, a Paralegal for the
North Central Regional Office of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, in support of their motion.
9

clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6). While similar,
“Exemption 7(C) is more protective of privacy than Exemption 6: The former provision applies
to any disclosure that could reasonably be expected to constitute an invasion of privacy that is
unwarranted, while the latter bars any disclosure that would constitute an invasion of privacy that
is clearly unwarranted.” U.S. Dep’t of Defense v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 510 U.S. 487, 496
n.6 (1994) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, if the Defendants can establish that the
material was compiled for law enforcement purposes, they must satisfy only the lower
withholding standard contained in Exemption 7(C). See Patterson, 56 F.3d at 838-39.
To determine if disclosure is required, the Court must balance the competing interests in
public disclosure and the privacy interest of the individual referenced in the record. See
Reporters Comm., 489 U.S. at 762. Gabrion’s personal interest in the materials is irrelevant to
this weighing. See U.S. Dep’t of Defense v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 510 U.S. at 496
(“Congress clearly intended the FOIA to give any member of the public as much right to
disclosure as one with a special interest [in a particular document].)” (alteration in original)
(internal citations and quotations omitted); Hawkins v. D.E.A., 347 Fed. Appx. 223, 225 (7th Cir.
2009) (“[A] prisoner’s interest in attacking his own conviction is not a public interest.”).
Exemption 7(E) allows the agency to withhold “records or information compiled for law
enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records
or information . . . would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations
or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions
if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law.” 5 U.S.C. §
552(b)(7)(E). Exemption 7(F) permits withholding of “records or information compiled for law

10

enforcement purposes” that, if disclosed, “could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or
physical safety of any individual.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(F).
a. Group 10
The document at issue in Group 10 is a one-page Incident Report issued to a third-party
inmate regarding an incident in the USP Terre Haute Special Confinement Unit on August 30,
2007. Gabrion argues that the report is in his Central File and thus has sufficient relevancy to
him. However, as noted above, the interests of the public, not Gabrion himself, are relevant to
the Court’s weighing of the interests at issue. Here, the third party’s privacy interest in his
discipline record outweighs the public’s interest in disclosure. See Reporters Comm, 489 U.S. at
780 (“When the subject of such a rap sheet is a private citizen and when the information is in the
Government’s control as a compilation, rather than as a record of ‘what the Government is up
to,’ the privacy interest protected by Exemption 7(C) is in fact at its apex while the FOIA-based
public interest in disclosure is at its nadir.”) The Defendants properly withheld the document in
Group 10 under Exemption 7(C).
b. Group 11
The information at issue consists of ten pages of a staff injury assessment and
photographs dated May 25, 2009. Gabrion argues that the report is in his Central File and thus
has sufficient relevancy to him and that a guard or staff member cannot have a personal privacy
expectation. Exemption 6 specifically protects from disclosure “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). See Big Ridge, Inc. v. Fed. Mine Safety & Health Review Comm’n, 715 F.3d
631, 651 (7th Cir. 2013) (finding that absent “extraordinary circumstances,” it would violate a
third party’s privacy to turn over that party’s medical records); Lakin Law Firm, P.C. v.

11

F.T.C., 352 F.3d 1122, 1124 (7th Cir. 2003) (“[P]ersonal identifying information is regularly
exempt from disclosure. And that is as it should be, for the core purpose of the FOIA is to expose
what the government is doing, not what its private citizens are up to.”). The third-party staff
member’s privacy interest in non-disclosure of his records detailing this injury outweighs any
public interest in the disclosure of the documents. As such, the Defendants properly withheld the
records in Group 11 under Exemptions 6 and 7(C).
c. Group 13
Group 13 consists of eight pieces of correspondence between third-party non-inmates and
BOP staff members at USP Terre Haute. The declaration provides the date of correspondence,
status of the author, the BOP staff involved, and the general topic of each letter. Gabrion argues
if the correspondence is from persons who seek permission to visit him, he has the right to know
and there is no privacy right involved. The Defendants have responded that none of the
correspondence involved an attempt to contact Gabrion; rather, the correspondence was related
to the third parties’ concerns regarding Gabrion’s communication and visitation. Moreover, the
Defendants argue that, even if names and addresses were redacted, Gabrion would be able to tell
the identities of those parties. The privacy interests of the third parties who corresponded with
the BOP regarding Gabrion outweigh the public’s interest in the documents, as disclosure would
not advance public transparency in the operations of the BOP. As such, the Defendants properly
withheld the records in Group 13 under Exemption 7(C).
d. Group 14
Group 14 consists of inmate population monitoring records contained in Gabrion’s
Special Investigative Services File dated January 30, 2013; June 10, 200? [sic]; and May 28,
2009. While some of the information was disclosed, the Defendants indicate that they withheld

12

the names and register numbers for third-party inmates, as well as staff comments regarding the
BOP’s incarceration and management of those inmates. Gabrion argues that the information
might reflect on his mental state. The third parties have an interest in their personal information
and identity and location information, and that interest in not outweighed by the public’s interest
in the documents. As such, the Defendants properly withheld the records in Group 14 under
Exemption 7(C).
e. Group 15
Group 15 consists of inmate population monitoring records contained in Gabrion’s
Special Investigative Services File dated September 12, 2001. The Defendants indicate that
Group 15 “consist[s] of internal assignments that fall under the broad [Central Inmate
Monitoring] assignments used for classification and monitoring and are used to develop specific
procedures for managing inmates.” Dkt. No. 46-1 at 15. The Defendants argue that disclosure of
the classification and monitoring criteria could assist criminals in evading the monitoring
techniques employed by the BOP, leading to safety and security concerns. Gabrion argues that
there has been no showing that any investigative techniques are not already generally known to
the public and that the information might reflect on his mental state. The Court finds that
Exemption 7(E) applies, as disclosure would reveal techniques, procedures, and guidelines that
could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law. Disclosure of classification and
monitoring techniques could allow inmates to use the information in a way that could threaten
the safety of guards and other prisoners. As such, the Defendants properly withheld the records
in Group 15 under Exemption 7(E).

13

f. Group 17
Group 17 consists of items in Gabrion’s Central File identified as “Program Forms.” The
Defendants indicate that the items address Gabrion’s affiliations, if any, and the criteria on which
those determinations are based. Gabrion argues that there has been no showing that any
investigative techniques are not already generally known to the public and that the information
might reflect on his mental state. The Court finds that Exemption 7(E) applies, as disclosure
would reveal techniques, procedures, and guidelines that could reasonably be expected to risk
circumvention of the law. Disclosure of classification and monitoring techniques could allow
inmates to use the information in a way that could threaten the safety of guards and other
prisoners. As such, the Defendants properly withheld the records in Group 17 under Exemption
7(E).
g. Group 18
Group 18 consists of “Inmate Population Monitoring Records” from May 28, 2009, and
June 10, 2009. The documents were provided in part, but names and contact information for third
parties were withheld. The Defendants allege that disclosure of the withheld information would
be an unwarranted invasion of the other individual’s privacy and would endanger the life or
physical safety of third parties. Gabrion argues that the information might reflect on his mental
state. The third parties have an interest in their personal information and identity and location
information, and that interest is not outweighed by the public’s interest in the documents. As
such, the Defendants properly withheld the records in Group 18 under Exemption 7(C).
h. Group 19
Group 19 consists of “Clearance and Separatee Data” for Gabrion from 2009. The
Defendants indicate that it withheld the names, register numbers, sentence, classification, and

14

management information for third-party inmates and specific locations of the inmates from
whom Gabrion must be separated. Gabrion argues that the information might reflect on his
mental state. The Defendants allege that disclosure of the withheld information would be an
unwarranted invasion of the other individual’s privacy and would endanger the life or physical
safety of third parties. The third parties have an interest in their personal information and identity
and location information, and that interest in not outweighed by the public’s interest in the
documents. As such, the Defendants properly withheld the records in Group 19 under Exemption
7(C).
i. Group 20
Group 20 consists of a video recording from a SCU visiting room. The video shows
Gabrion assaulting a visitor and the staff response to the assault. The Defendants indicate that the
video reveals the BOP’s ability to monitor the visiting rooms, including camera placement and
blind spots. It also reveals staff response time and method of response. Gabrion argues that the
video appears to involve the attorney who made the initial FOIA request. The Court finds that
Exemption 7(F) applies, as disclosure of the video would present clear risks to law enforcement
officials. Other prisoners might learn this information and use it in the future. See Zander v.
Dep’t of Justice, 885 F. Supp. 2d 1, 7-8 (D.D.C. 2012) (finding that disclosure of a recording of a
cell extraction raised the possibility that other prisoners would learn the methods and procedures
utilized by BOP officials and use the information to prevent the safe application of these
techniques in the future). As such, the Defendants properly withheld the records in Group 20
under Exemption 7(F).

15

IV.

CONCLUSION

The Court finds that the BOP properly withheld all of the groups that remain in dispute.
In camera review is not required, as the Defendants have provided sufficient detail as to each
Group to allow the Court to rule without reviewing the documents. As such, the Court GRANTS
the Defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment and DENIES Gabrion’s motion for
summary judgment.
SO ORDERED: 9/21/16

_______________________________
Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Copies to all counsel of record via electronic communication.

16