RAD v. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE et al

Filing 65

OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Anne E. Thompson on 1/31/2017. (mmh)

RECEIVED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

JAN 3 1 2017
AT 8:30
WILLIAM T. WALSH
CLERK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

M

CHRISTOPHER RAD,
Plaintiff,

Civ. No. 15-2415

v.
UNITED STATES.ATTORNEY'S OFFICE,

OPINION

Defendant.

. ·.THOMPSON, U.S.D.J.

INTRODUCTION
This matt~ is before the Court upon a motion for summary judgme~t filed bY." P~fer{dant_
the United.StatesAttorney'.sOffice for the District ofNew Jersey ("Defendant").:·(ECF No: S6).: ·•
Plaintiff Ghristopher Rad ("Plaintiff') opposes the moti~n. (ECF No. 59). P~eviously, Plaintiff
filed a motion to order production for in camera review, which Defendant addresses in its motion
·-··.
. ...
.

'-.

:- :--

.~-...

..

.. ::

.

·

· for summaryjudinient. (ECF No. 51). The Court has decided the moti6~sbasedbnfhe.wHtten
subtnissioils of the parties_ and without oral argument pursuant to_ Loca~ 'Ci~~l~ Rµle 78.J (b)~ - For_-.
the reasons stated herein, Defendant's motion for summary judgment will be granted and
Plaintiffs motion to order production for in camera review will be denied .. : ..

BACKGROUND
On No·v~mber 30, 2012, Pl~ntiffwas convicted of six counts arising from_... a securities~·-_
·-·
.
\

. fraud scheme. (See United States v. Rad, Cr. No. 11-0161, Jury Verdict, ECF No. 68). On or
· _,

"about February 5, 2015, Defendant received two Freedom of Information Act("FOIA~').requests-.~
1

from Plaintiff. 1 (Second Supplemental Deel. of Princina Stone ("Stone Deel.") at~ 6, ECF No.
56-4). Plaintiff sought a variety of records related to his criminal case. (FOIA Requests, Stone
Deel. Exs. A and B). On April 6, 2015, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant, alleging that
Defendant had failed to respond to his FOIA requests within twenty days. (Pl.'s Compl.

at~

7,

ECFNo. 1).
PlaintifPs First FOIA request sought the following information related to his criminal
case, No. 3:11-CR-0016: "(i) Skype subpoenaed records for the identity 'trevman' and interview
notes claimed to exist by FBI Agent Lauri Allen; (ii) The last known address and or any other
contact information for Trevor Ruiz; (iii) The subpoena used to subpoem1 the Skype records
claimed to exist by Allen, and return service of the subpoena; (iv) Any and all information from
Qp,tonline andhow"itwas recei~_~d by Y.Our<?ffi~~~ IfJtwa~:~~c~i~~d-~y:~-~bp_()~l1.a .• -.-~copy of~_ -

- -

r'·

.

1:==--

that subpoena ~4 retl1rn_o,f $ervice." (Stone Deel., Ex. A). Plaintiff's- second FOIA request also
- -

~-

.

__. -

-

-- -

sought information related to his criminal caset'·'(i} Any and ~ll- E-.golq _r~cord_s that are held .

. (iii) Any and all from the Bank-ofAmerica related to tl!e above case;- (i~Y The subpoena ~d .. ~

...

.

.

.

return of service used to get the Bank- ofAnierj~a,Rec.c;>rds~.'~ ~(Stone Deel.'; Ex~- B).:; .
.
- -·
.
-·
·.

-·

.~

:-

:

.- -

-

·'

-.'

-

.. -

.

..

-

.

-

..

:...

.

.-.

--~-

·-

-

'': ~ -

.-

.

~:_.

- -

-_

_On September. 17, 2015,-.pefendarit fo~a'i:ciec,lPl~fotiffs~,FOIA~e.questS:'to:the Executive - ·
.
:_:. .
.
'

.

,. .

:.

.

-

-

::.;.

-,,~

.

~:._ :

~-

.

_-

-

-'_

.

.

-

·'

..-

. .

·;:·

i :

Plaintiff's requests, sending him relevant records on January 15, 2016, February 17, 2016, and
-

.

April 11, 2016. (Id. at~~ 9,.,.12)~ J;:OUSA·iP.fo~~dP~a~nt~fft~~t_ll_1?J1Yre~:<:ml~l~~requested,_-_
,. __

: were withheld_ in p~ __o1;)1:l fµJJ .becau~e they fell \}n<;ler_ FQJA'~--ex~p~fo~~<{Seg_Responses to
~-

·-

-..

.

-:

.•.

-.···'"'".·-

-~:-·

-··

·~

_..,.·-- .. ·.· ...•.

. :.:·_,· ... _

·:.

;"'!.:·.

..

·.·'..

·.

· . . -.:_-··:._·~:

·.. ---~~ :;-~_:-.. ,.;-~-

:..,··.·.:

·~

. ·~

.

The Court notes that Plaintiff has.failed to·respo~d to·Defendartt's_Sfateriient ofMaterialFacts· in connection with this motion for -summary judgment. -Given Pla1ntiff':s p~o se_ status," the Court .
will not consider this failure as Plaintiff's outright admission of the facts contained in .
Defendant's Statement of Material Facts, biitrather will draw the relevant facts from the record.
See Oguguo v. Wells Fargo Bank, 2016 WL 3o4fss3·, at *1 n.1{D.N~fMay27f2016). --- - ·
1

2

FOIA Requests, Stone Deel. Exs. C and D). Additionally, the Federal Bureau of Investigation
("FBI") was also involved in reviewing and sending records to Plaintiff. (Stone Deel.

at~

10).

On March 18, 2016, the FBI sent Plaintiff responsive records, with certain deletions made
pursuant to FOIA's ex~ptions. (Fourth Declaration of David M. Hardy ("Hardy Deel.'') Ex. C,
ECFNo. 57).
Previously, Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and Defendant filed its
first motion for summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 32, 35). On July 13th, this Court issued an
opinion denying Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and-denying Defendant's first
motion for summary judgment without prejudice ("July 13th Opinion,'_' ECF No. 46). Soon
thereafter, following submissions by both parties and Plaintiff's-failure to oppose the

~-oov~I'lUD~~l'(~i.tNJoJ~i~g_q(c~rta!n pank-o~,Am~ca ~~- 91>t~O~in~_ r~cords ()tjgin~llY-~- · · · requested by Plaintiff, the Cotutadvised the parties_ that the_ documents still at issue in this case
are those~that were resportsive:to Plaintiffs r~quests.~fotdocuments concerning E-gold and--

·'.TreVo~Riliz;btlh~ci-e 'tlfuelci'byt}i~ GoV~~t~·~i>~ttJ..ilia&·at·I";.ECFNii~·5~);· ··
.

.

.

•. -'=,, ~• Sub~_equently, ·Plaintiff filed

.

a motion to: ordef production for in_camera r~view, and pefendant

-

.

-

-

.

-

filed a se~ond moti~n>for-suriunaryjudgffientc;n September 23, 2016. (ECF Nos. 51, 56). In _
-..:. . . .-- -- - -.
. -· ~

-

--~

-

·'

·:~ ~-:

~

-

:

·-

-

-

- connection-with.Derertdant-'s·motioft~ .D~fendant's~bnii_tied certain documents thafwere withheld
..
:_: _.
··-·--

___·

- __

-~

,_

-~~-~:·.-

__

:~;_~:··

...

-

-

-

::···-

-

-

._:.

_:._-·;

:..~

..

'

...

· puisua.iit)o thete!evah~:FOIA-exenipt_io~'-to_ihe:Court for in camera review;: Ther~efore,
Defendant's motion for summary judgment and Plaintiffs motion to order production for in
-

.

camera review· ar~:p~~~ep.tly beforethe,_Court:·:- -"---•·-·
.· - ._
.
::: .····
·:

;"

·-~-~

:. ..

. ..

~

-

.

::

. any~l{t~riaL~~~t apdJliatthe mo\"ant i~ entitle~ to)udgment as a matter oflaw." Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(c); Celotex Corp~~v.:Catrett,:-477U~s-~\317~322_,(l986)~:: fu.decidingamotfoii"fOf summary

3-

judgment, a district court considers the facts drawn from "the pleadings, the discovery and
disclosure materials, and any affidavits" and must ''view the inferences to be drawn from the
underlying facts in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion." Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(c); Curley v. Klem, 298 F.3d 271, 276-77 (3d Cir. 2002) (internal quotations omitted). hi
resolving a motion for summary judgment, the Court must determine ''whether the evidence
presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided
that one party must prevail as a matter oflaw." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 25152 (1986). Summary judgment is appropriate irt a FOIA case when the defendant's affidavits
''describe the withheld information and the justification for withholding with reasonable
specificity, demonstrating a logical connection between the information and the claimed
.

-

--

.·· __ . ~ ·~:>: ....... _ . ~~xernp!iori;~andjrre n;ot,c~mt.roy~~ed

bYc ~ither contrary evidence in_the·re~~~dnor by evidenc~ of

. · -·agency bad faith.'~.Carpv:LR.S.,2002

WL.373~:i48, a.t·*4(D~N.J.

'""-c":C·''·'·,,;e::,.:,;.::c~.::;?;i:c:c::~'c·i/"'·''-:;;c;;,.:,;.,··:.:~>::.

..

~· ...

.

. ~. -

- .. ---- -· -·.
:.. ... -.
~

- - ---.

- -_

Jan. 28; 2002) (citation

-

•

• ~oA ••

'

~t.~·· ANA:EYSJSt/~~.

-~· ·. 1.-. ..... -.: Defemiag_t's: Mntio~ for su~aey·Jndgment: _
. . FQIA 11J.andat~s th~t· ~gencies perfonn searches that are "reasonably calculated to uncover
.

-

:~;--

-·'

-~

.: - ·-:

.-=- -:._

·--~~---·

: .. :.:-·_-··~~

-

~--

_..

_-,-

-. ~-~-

---

.----· ..

-.

--:

-

-

·-~---:·

-::_

.· ---·· _ ....

_"":"."

. . -;;:

.

-

l!llrelevant docwnentS/!,cAbdeifattah v. U.S. pep't ?(Homeland Sec., 488 F .3d 178, 182 (3d Cir.
::.-.:.-

..

... 2007) (quoting~(Jgles~y v~. u.s.· Dep 't qfArmyi,910~E2d.57, 68 (D~c. Cir. 1990));:~Agencies are

··

then required .to produce. the _relevant documents urtless· one of nine FOIA exemptions applies .
.. _: '.~:,j\::C:=c-," .c':;~<

x .~ee 5· U :S.(;. §.- 552(b)~·:.~fan agency believe~ _one qf th~ exemptions applies,. then "[t]he agency
---:_---~,, ---=-· .,.,_.

. _..

.

~:::

- _:.._.

~ .

- ~~-:· ...: . -_ '-

--.~,~·· ~-- -_~.

- .

-.... -·

.- ._bears: th~ bt.Jf~~~l_Qf jµ~_t~fYiri.i.~e withhol4ing;
-·
:_-

-

" .

-

-~-·

:· _...._

'

an4 the. [district] . cour(:review~. the agency. claims .
:
· ---~: ....
....

..

.

.

-

.

- .. ·.·

·. ofe.x~ptirin .. d~·_,fo~o.~' _OSHiData!Clll;In~. v;.Il$:::Dep'to/Labor,- 220 F..3d 153, 160(3d
.
..
.
.
.
·.

.

~-

.

-~-

·..

.

-.

-

.-· .

.~

.

err.. 2000) (citation.'c)initted)_(alteration in original)~-~ .
4 .-

,,:,,-_..

. ..

.

-

Therefore, there are two issues that the Cotirl wiil address in determining whether
Defendant is entitled to summary judgment. First, whether the Government conducted an
adequate search that was reasonably calculated to uncover all the documents relevant to
Plaintiffs FOIA request, and second whether Defendant has proven that the relevant documents
were properly withheld only as appropriate under the relevant FOIA exemptions. The Court will
address each in turn.

I.

Adequacy of the Search

·In theJuly 13th Opinion, the Court previously determined that Plaintiff was not

-challenging the adequacy of the search;< and that "it appears that [the Government]_ search was
- reasonably calculated to reveal all relevant documents, thus fulfilling one ofFOIA's
L:-I-<_~~'.requitements/' · (July.13th()pinion~at 2~_ECF:No;

46). The parties.do notpresent.any new-·.

': argunients on this issue~ and Plaintiff again does not challenge the adequacy of the Government
-

.

- < .)'- - search. (See Def.'s Br~ at_2,ECF No. 56-8; Pl.'s Br., ECF No. 59). The Court is satisfied that
..

·o

_first ofFOiA~-s-.req{iif~m~rits is fulfilled.-· . ·

_:::-·"-·

:_~-·- .l

:II. - ·:_ Witbh~~ding o.f Documents under fO~ Exemptions

. - - The next i~stie ~hatthe~Court-must address is\~1hetherDefendant has proven that the
.

•.

.

-·

-

- -.

- ·.

-

-

EOUSA.and:FBlproper,ly ~ithheld docum~nts:under the appropriate FOIA exemptions. An
agency can meet its burden by filing an affidavit that describes the material withheld and
·explains why _thatmateriaLfalls under_a particul~ e~~n:iptio:p..-- McDonnell v. United States, 4
:,.._:·

;-~-:-·:EL:f:.3d<l247, 12~L(3_d~Cir~·.192$) ....Specifically; _ agenqies. ·__ar.e:g~11erally required to submit a
-C·_··::;-> ..-.... ·· ,.__- . .:· -- •. ':
-- .--: __ ..
--_._::_:-;:;_···
-- .
- --- .
:' - -.
- - .
··-·
-·,:·.~~--

-----~

~-~=~:-.:.->-'~-··-·: --~·:-

~-.:

'' Vcz~ghn inclex:'.(nruii~d.~ft~tvau~h~ v.

~.:.:..-

--.~~-

..:.~-~-

~~--·····

Ros~n~ 484-F-.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. i 973) the case in which

. the requirement was· artfoulated)~ The Vaughn index must be sufficiently detailed so that the
, -_ -_ plaintiff and~ the district coiirt can obtain a "clear explanation of why each document or portion of
5

a document withheld is putatively exempt from disclosure." Hinton v. Dep't ofJustice, 844 F.2d
126, 129 (3d Cir. 1988).
Defendant argues that documents responsive to Plaintiff's FOIA requests were properly
withheld under Exemptions 3, 6, 7(C}, 7(D}, and 7(E). The documents still at issue in this case
are those that were responsive to Plaintiff's FOIA requests for documents concerning E-gold and
Trevor Ruiz, but were withheld. (Letter Order at 1, ECF No. 52). Therefore, the following of
Plaintiff's initial requests are still at issue: (1) Skype subpoenaed records for the identity trevman
_ and interview notes claimed to exist by FBI Agent Lauri Allen; (2) The last known address and
___ or any other contact information for Trevor Ruiz;~-(3) The subpoena.used to subpoena the Skype
records claimed to exist by Allen, and return service of the subpoena; (4) Any and all E-gold
.

-

:_ · :_- :c:~_ records- thaf are-lield relating: to Plaintiff s>criminal- case;-(5):The subpoena and- return of service _

_ used to getthe E-gold records. The Court will address the five claimed exempti,ons and their
- ,_-____ ·_/'applicability to the refovani"documents.

-_ · ·:-<~~--~~:<~x~ptfon -3 - ~ -

-

FOIAExemp!1on 3 provides that an agency may withhold documents that are,
"specificallyexempt_edfr_om 4isclosure by [another] statute." 5 U.S.C. §-552(b)(3). "Exemption- __
_

,

_3 differs from the otper;FOIA exemptions in that its applicability depends less on the detailed ':· -

-

-

factual con~en~siof"sp~cific documents. _Instead, the sole issues for decision in_ deteririining the
applicability of Exemption 3 to a particular set of documents are the existence of [another] -relev~t
.

statute an&th~_inch.1sion of withheld material within the statute's coverage." McDonnell._ -__ .
.

.

-

·-

'

~>v.Jlnited§tat(!s,
• :. ~-;

••

.

• •

.

•

":.._"o..

.

.

"

4-E_.3d-_122.7,J246(3d Cir~ 1993) (citation omitted). Federal Rule.ofCriminaL-: __
"

•

••

·O·' ·;"

-

•

-

:

- " •: -

-

.

·

c-

·

_

·-;

: ---'J>rocedur~ 6(e), which g~verns f~d~al grand-jury proceedings and imposes a general nile of
secrecy on many individuals present during grand jury proceedings, is a statute that falls withill'- -

-

- Exemptfon:3-:-McDonnell, 4 F.3d at 1246-47-(3d Cir. 1993); Amro v. U.S. Customs Serv., 128 F. -- -

6

Supp. 2d 776, 787 (E.D. Pa.

2001)~

"All grandjury subpoenas ... and therefore their dates of

issuance fall within FOIA's third exemptions." Lopez v. Dep 't ofJustice, 393 F.3d 1345, 1350
(D.C. Cir. 2005).
Here, EOUSA invoked Exemption 3 to withhold in full seven grand jury subpoenas and
nine pages ofE-gold and Skype records obtained through grand jury subpoenas. See Stone Deel.
~ 25;

Ex. H (Second Supplemental Vaughn Index at 2-4). These documents relate to a federal

grand jury proceeding and are governed by Rule 6(e). The release of information contained in
these do.cuments has the potential to reveal substantive infonnation about a grand jury
investigation. The Court finds that these documents fall within FOIA Exemption 3, and that the
relevant documents were properly withheld under Exemption 3.
b. Exemption 7(0).
Exemption 7 protects from disclosure "records or information compiled for law
- . -, ·-?:: =_:_.-i:{<<-;t. ::;;.~-~ -

enforcement purposes" W.heie-di.s~cffosil.ffwould result in one of the six eriumerate<lharm~; set ;
__
.:·

-,-

~-

forth in 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7JI.;~To-qualify for withholding under any subsection of Exemption?,:
.

.

.

rec9rds must first satisfyJ1.t.~~s~ol4 r~quirement: that they are "compiled for law enforcement:-.~·.~.
-

-

._:-~-:-~_·;~·~::_·--

... <-~='---

-

-~-

purposes." 5 U.S.A.§ 552(b)(7). An agency seeking to apply Exemption 7 "does not have to
•

•

:.

•

•_

L

•

.•

-identify a particular individua(o_r incident as the object of an investigation into a potential
violation of law or securit)/risiE'--'rAbdelfattah,488 F.3d at 185 (citation omitted). Rather, the
agency must only show "that the relationship between its authority to enforce a statute or
.·

- _.

..

~--·:- :.•

regul~tfon and the ~ctiVity giving·:rise to the requested documents is based upon suffiCient

.- ·. c·~--:-_j· igfq@ati~n\o support ~t ·1e~i~:c~forab1e·C1aini of the relationship's rationality}' ·id~· afT86:.> '-:
•• .'. - - - - .

------

-,

;,'-"'.:

.... . : : - ; · .

7;

•• -

-··.·-.·.:•• ; .

•

•

---- · -

- - - _.

-

•

•

•

•

•. •

••

-· - .,

•

One of the specific Exemptions within Exemption 7 is Exemption 7(D) which allow~an agency to withhold law enforceme!lt records if their release "could reasonably be expected to
disclose the identity of a confidential source." See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(D). Under this
7

exemption, "a source should be deemed confidential if it furnished information with the
understanding that the government would not divulge the communication except to the extent
that the [agency] thought necessary for law enforcement purposes." McDonnell, 4 F.3d at 1258.
Here, the FBI withheld thirty-four pages ofE-gold records pursuant to Exemption 7(D).
(Hardy Deel. at if 30). These documents were compiled during the FBI's criminal investigation
of Plaintiff, thus it is clear that they were withheld for law enforcement purposes. Further,
Defendant claims that the FBI withheld the documents to protect the names, identifying data,
and/or information provided by a confidential source under an express assurance of
confidentiality.

-(Id.~

30.). The Court finds that theFBI properly withheld these documents.

under ~xemption 7(D).

a.

---

...

Exemption 6 and Exemption 7(C)

_,, ·.·".. · . ,:~··.Pnrsuant to Exemptioo7(C), an agency may refuse to disclose ~nfcmn_ation-"compiled.for .
.:--.:- ...:

~;~:··~. ·:::,=·J~i:Ja~-'~tifor~$ent purposes" when its production "could reaso~ablfb:~:-~kp~cted to constitute an·.::
·:-::.·""-

,.•; .. :; :

·!.';'"''. . .

>~. ->.:~:« .. ~_ -~~-: • ~-

-.:~--~K.-: ·.~~·~.;=- •~.::i~~~;~i.=·=··:=~-;:·.~:·,:~ :~, -~ -~, ~-- -~:·
<

-

:

];-,:-~~:~;<~·-::.~~-~ <~~~-~ :_ •

." ~;<:'.~· uriwarranted invasion of privacy;". 5 U.S.C." § 552(b)(7J(C). Wll,e1l~aii ag~ncy rai~cs Exemptfon:~~~::::::L·
... - ..
..

,.

.. : .- ,: > ~<:
J

..

-

..

.

. ..

'

.

..

. .

"

~·

.

'-;) (C),, the requestor must first put forth a significant p:ublic: int~est,·~:"~, iil.terest more specifiq.

:'"," .. '_,v . . ,

•

-::·-.

-····:~.~··~-.~.

-

•'

..

•

•

'

•

-

'

-

'7:'-~: .....

L•_·,

~---~.-"'.-.-.:. .. • -;..~~=-~~---~;-···~:.:~ ... · ~-.-:-,~:·-::
..

··~-

.

...

~--

'•

r

-~---

•

•

-- .

·. than having the information for its own sake. Second, the [reque·stor] must show the information·· .
.

·

.~->~··· ·fc<·(.:is· likely to advance that interest. Otherwise; the invasion of privacY-fS ·.unwarranted~" Nat'l·.·

..

·.. ·

.• ·.Archives & Records Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157, 172 (2004) . .-"Absent proof of [govemmentJ .·

misconduct;" there is little reason to invade the privacy interests shielded by Exemption 7(C}. ·
-·

-~ ~·--:::~ J:·:c

,Manna V; U.S. Dep 't ofJustice, 51 F.3d 1158, 1166 (3d Cir.1995).-..

• <••

··.files the disclosure of which- would constitute a clearly unwarranted in\T~iori of personal.

· · , -· ·.·privacy." 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6). Exemption 6 covers "records that
. ,;:;.._·

-

cm. be identified as applying .

'

. to a particular individual"-not merely "those files that contain intimate details or highly
8

:

personal information." Berger v. IRS, 288 F. App'x 829, 832 (3d Cir. 2008).

Exemption 6

contemplates a similar balancing of interests as Exemption 7(C). McDonnell, 4 F.3d at 1252.
In this case, the EOUSA and the FBI relied on Exemption 6 and 7(C) to withhold names,
identifying infonnation, and records relating to (1) third party E-gold users or accountholders;
(2) government employees involved in Plaintiffs investigation and prosecution, including FBI
Special Agents; (3) third parties who were mentioned in FBI records; and (4) third parties who
provided information to the FBI. (See Stone Deel. mf31-32; Ex. H (Vaughn Index at 1-5);
Hardy Deel. mf 23-27). Plaintiffarguesthat the FBlhas not carried its burden in invoking
Exemption 6 and- 7(C).- The Court disagrees.- -Further,-the Court is not persuaded that Plaintiffs
unsubstantiated allegations of government misconduct constitute a sufficient public interest that
would warrant. disclosrire here~. N~r is.the CoUrt persuadedctlia£the rele~as·e of the withheld. -information here, which could risk the priv~~y ~d safety, of those mune4 i1:1~ividuals, would - .
..

·~~:~ -~;·~: ,- !

_,~-

·-

~

..

-

-.

:-

-

_,,,

_.::.-

_,;~~ • -~~:~~-,~_·:_~~--t=~-~~~-~~~J ~-:·:..::2.~~~~-~-:·~-~;.~:.:~ :-: ·. ·-:-=:-~·~.:-: ~~-~·--~-

-.

:·~-~ ~~-..~ ":~-:'.:..;~F ·_-;

-

~. -. Plaintiffaiso-argUesthaHhe:pBI\\Tfongfullyinvoked,Exemp#ons~6 and 7(C)becausejt.

.'.:·.:·has not shown:that~e.:~I1ciiyi4p~~t.iB!.!P:~~~::!~~()~4s"are::stiU_a1ive~'.,.)1~e:J1tjfd Circuit has held.that- ·
"it is within the discretibn-~fthe.distrlctc~urttorequire ar1agen~y~():demonstrate that ~he ·
-- -...

---

individuals.upon w~ose behalf it9Iai~s:,thtf privacy exemp~i01rare,- ill~ fact~ alive." Frankenber,.Y: :: _~• v. F.B.I., 567 F~ App'x 120, 122 (3d Cir. 2014)~. Defendanfhas-undertakeil substantial efforts to.··

attempt to ascertainthe,life status of the relevant indiVidualshere, including searching an·
external database named co:rlsolidate~ _L~adJ~vatuadon~ancf R.~oitin~;_(''!JLEA!t"J. -(Hardy
.

·· oeci. ir 31), The COUrtis·satlSfied~f~¢·<J?1~~~fc#'etf~~f!~ereasonabte, and the court ·
.

.·

.

.

.

.

declines to require: the:relevant-agencies·:fo affirmatively demonstrate the life-status of the·
individuals involved here. After bruancing the relevant inte~ests an~ considering all of the
<;-

9

• •

•
-•.::;_··-

parties' arguments, the Court finds that Defendant properly withheld documents pursuant to both
Exemptions 6 and 7(C).
b. Exemption 7(E)
An agency may withhold records that are "compiled for law enforcement purposes"

under Exemption 7(E) when their production would disclose ''techniques and procedures for law
enforcement investigation or prosecutions, or would disclose ·guidelines for law enforcement
investigation or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk
circumvention ofthelaw." 5 U.S.C. § 5~2(b)(.7)(E). An agency's burden in asserting exemption
7(E) is relatively low because, "[r]ather than requiring a highly specific burden of showing how
!he l~w will be_ circumv~n~ed,

ex~p~~~n 7(~) <?_nl_y_ reguir.es tha~ the. [age11cy]. demonstrate

· logically how-the.release ofthe .requested-inform.ationmightcreatea risk of circumvention of the

.. ;·law~,,-_ Qata~na1J-i \ 1•. Dep't ofJustice; 2dis:_wL·i 472227, at* lk(D.N.J.· Mar.-31, 2015) (citations·
·omittedf(alt~r;tioniil briginal). · ·_ . _ :~\_<'.:~:·<.·
-i

' •FHeie,
-

.

.

··

··

theFBlinvok~ Ex'~~~~n;~) to protect th; rirulie ~f ~ Ullilercover operation
.

.

-

.

-

-

...

.

.

-

.

Defendanfargues that the disClo.sure:otthej1ame of the-undercovetopetation could provide
.~rtsigbtmtti.the~ actuaLopetation;_.~hlcll ·ctiniinals could~ use to~develo~: co@termeasures to . ·

·_ ·. circi.urrvent future· operatfons. The FBralso asserted Ex~emptiOn 7(E)to protect an internal, non-publicintr~etwebaddress
-

,

-

-- ·__ . - ..__.,.

.-:. .~~~--,----.";:·," ..

specific to the~BL.(HardyDecL, 33). Finally, the FBI also
·.-

...... -.

=~--:

->... · :-··_:..·.·--.h; ...- -.__.-· ':.--.

·"·;;~c~~:·;~''< ;'·:-~Cj:~ as·s~e<EEx¢plp#on-'7 (E)Jo prgtectinfop11atiori ~ to whethepu1 irt~estigatioh is ~ategorized ·as
-..

__ .

-·-

':.:~:-····•~.ir~'-fu~l'_'~()i:_~:,~~eY~P#.fiafy/~:~s~wbi1~~iJ~e~ci~t~:~~c~-·i.nves~igatio~·•was~:imti~!e&~~-(H~~,Y·-nect.,.34)~;.
-

-

.

.·

.

-

:

-

.

-

_·-

-

..

"

, .:- . . _ ---<-_"-'.-,:Tu~:FBl:offered,sufficient.reas~nsforwithholdingthe.infonnatiOn.- Qonsidering the low burden . that is req11ired· under ExemptiOn 7(E), the _Court finds that th~_~:BI pl"operly withhe\p
- - - ... ~--- -

inform~tion pursuant

to E)(emptioµ 7(E). ·

In sum, the Court has reviewed the submissions of the parties and has also reviewed
certain withheld documents submitted to the Court for in camera review by Defendant. After
doing so, the Court is persuaded that Defendant has "describe[d] the withheld information and
the justification for withholding with reasonable specificity, demonstrating a logical connection
between the information and the claimed exemption." Carp, 2002 WL 373448, at *4 (citation·
omitted). Therefore, the Court will grant Defendant's motion for summary judgment.

II.

Plaintiff's Motion to Order Production for In Camera Review
Defendant submitted certain documents to this Court in connection with its motion for

summary judgment. These-documents are: (l) Exhibit I to the Stone Declaration, consisting of a
"see-throug}i" copy of the documeJ?.tS attac~ed as Exhibit G to the Stone Declaration; (2) Exhibit

a

_ ~, -E tc)the Hardy:tieclaration,:consisting of ~~see-thiough"-copy of the docuhients· attached as
'--'~· ExhibitD.totheHardyDeclaratfon;

arid {3)ExhibitJ to.theHardy.Declaration, consisting of a

.f'see-through~;'·copy of the document attached as Exhibit I to the Hargy Declaration. In his
_
- "·•->·:.'":::~~·:co. c.;; .. :<.,?.:•i• _:,:7 ~c'"''~/'J::"..C;-;.c:-

- .

-

' -,

..

.

.;;¥;~;~_-.'·.;,:'cf."~;:•~~-:.".---< .

- --~~~i~~~'.'t~:~~rcier-production~i~r iI1camemreview,·.Plaintiff seeks~·to-tciicif~Defendant to produce

.· ---

, do so:. Th~refore; Plaintiff's motion to order production for in camera· review-will be denied.
'

--,, : .

Fofthe:Teasons discussed above;~ Defendarit' s motion for-suritinary judgment will be
· granted and Plaintiff's motion to order:ptoductiOn for in camera review will be denied. An

.:•_·-•_approptj~t~_"Qt4~-c~il}.--follow.-,.-·_

-

-.

..

-- ,-::::, ~~.:>~--· ·---7:,;,-:~·:.::~~:~ --·-_: :~: ::-~;;::· >-r-~<-:.····-~---··---~:-

D~tOO,

' . - ... -/::.$/_I.· .... ·.
•·•.

....• ·.···•••··•··•· ..

l . . ..

11