Frankenberry v. Federal Bureau of Investigation et al
Filing
89
ORDER adopting in part Report and Recommendations re 71 Report and Recommendations (SEE ORDER FOR DETALS)Signed by Honorable A. Richard Caputo on 3/21/2012 (cw, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOSEPH P. FRANKENBERRY,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:08-1565
Plaintiff,
(JUDGE CAPUTO)
v.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
AND U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
(MAGISTRATE JUDGE MANNION)
Defendants.
ORDER
NOW, this 21st day of March, 2012, after consideration of Magistrate Judge Mannion’s
Report and Recommendation (Doc. 71), Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 76), and Defendant’s objections to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 81), IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is REJECTED in
part and ADOPTED in part as follows:
(1) The Recommendation that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 20) be
denied is ADOPTED.
(2) The Recommendation that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 29) be
granted is ADOPTED in part and REJECTED in part:
(a) The Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation that Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment be granted as to the adequacy of Defendants’ search, Frankenberry-58,
Frankenberry-60, and to documents withheld pursuant to exemptions (b)(7)(D)-2,
(b)(7)(E)-1, and (b)(7)(E)-3 is ADOPTED.
(b) The Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation that Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment be denied as to Frankenberry-54 is REJECTED. Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment as to Frankenberry-54 is GRANTED.
(c) The Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation that Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment be denied as to documents withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(7)(E)-2,
except for information related to FBI expenditures and Frankenberry-54, is
ADOPTED. Defendants shall make a supplemental disclosure of these documents.
(d) The Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation that Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment be granted as to documents withheld pursuant to exemptions (b)(2),
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C), and (b)(7)(D)-1 (except for Frankenberry-58 and Frankenberry-60)
is REJECTED. Defendants shall review these documents to determine whether the
information may properly be withheld pursuant to the claimed exemption. If
Defendants cannot properly invoke the claimed exemption, Defendants shall make
a supplemental disclosure to Plaintiff. If Defendants continue to withhold any
documents under these exemptions, Defendants shall provide additional evidence
to the Magistrate Judge demonstrating the applicability of the claimed exemption.
(3) Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendants’ Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Objections to
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 80) is DENIED.
(4) Plaintiff’s Re-Newed Motion for Order Compelling Answer to Interrogatories (Doc. 72)
is held in abeyance pending Magistrate Judge Mannion’s recommendation as to whether
Defendants properly withheld documents pursuant to exemptions (b)(2), (b)(6), (b)(7)(C), and
(b)(7)(D)-1.
(5) This case is RECOMMITTED to Magistrate Judge Mannion for further proceedings.
/s/ A. Richard Caputo
A. Richard Caputo
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?