Case Law Ford v. Dep't of Justice

Ford v. Dep't of Justice

Document Cited Authorities (44) Cited in (17) Related

John A. Ford, Milan, MI, pro se.

Michael Benjamin Posner, Caitlin O'Leary Trujillo, Eric Joseph Young, U.S. Attorney's Office, Washington, DC, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BERYL A. HOWELL, United States District Judge

The plaintiff, John A. Ford, filed this action under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552, demanding that the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ"), the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") and the Executive Office for United States Attorneys ("EOUSA") "hand over records concerning Plaintiff," in response to his multiple FOIA requests, Compl. at 1, ECF No. 1, and that the FBI amend records maintained in its Central Records System ("CRS"), pursuant to the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, id. at 13. Pending before the Court is the defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 18, which, for the reasons discussed below, is granted.

I. BACKGROUND

The plaintiff "is currently serving a 240 month sentence ... after pleading guilty to one count of bank robbery by violence, force, and intimidation in connection with the robbery of the US Bank at 1586 North Rand Road, Palatine, Illinois on November 20, 2007." Mem. of P. & A. in Support of U.S. Dep't of Justice's Mot. for Summ. J. ("Defs.' Mem."), Decl. of David M. Hardy ("First Hardy Decl.") ¶ 5. In 2014 and 2015, the plaintiff submitted over ten FOIA requests to the FBI and EOUSA. The searches conducted by the FBI and EOUSA and the responses provided to the plaintiff's requests are described below.

A. The Defendants' Searches for Responsive Records1

The plaintiff's multiple FOIA requests to the FBI "sought specific items from his investigative main file (91A-CG-128167) or associated sub[-]files." First Hardy Decl. ¶ 46. Since the plaintiff "identified the specific file number" in which responsive records would be located, the FBI's declarant states that staff "searched the CRS only to confirm the file at issue was [the] plaintiff's investigative file." Id. ¶ 45. The CRS "is an extensive system of records consisting of applicant, investigative, intelligence, personnel, administrative, and general files compiled and maintained ... in the course of fulfilling [the FBI's] integrated missions and functions as a law enforcement, counterterrorism and intelligence agency to include performance of administrative and personnel functions." Id.

The FBI's declarant described the agency's practice is "to search the [CRS] to determine if the FBI has records about a particular subject in response to most [FOIA] requests." Id. Due to the nature of the plaintiff's requests for items, staff did not limit the search to CRS but also "retrieved the physical file, including sub-files[,] and manually search[ed] for the specific items" identified by the plaintiff in his requests. Id. ¶ 46. The declarant explained that "the FBI was able to locate almost all of the specific items ... requested," with the exception of "the item related to a dust mask [.]" Id.

The EOUSA's search was likewise guided by the plaintiff's request. He indicated that his criminal trial took place in the Northern District of Illinois and, consequently, the EOUSA referred the matter to the United States Attorney's Office for that district ("USAO/ILN"), where its FOIA Contact conducted the search for records responsive to Requests 2012-3780, 2014-0292 and 2015-0316. See Jolly Decl. ¶¶ 28, 30. The search began with LIONS, a "computer tracking system used by United States Attorney's Offices to track cases and retrieve files pertaining to cases and investigations." Id. ¶ 28. Through LIONS, the declarant explained, "the user can access databases ... to retrieve information based on a defendant's or individual's name, the USAO number (United States Attorney's Office's internal administrative number), and the district court case number." Id.

On October 22, 2012, the FOIA Contact searched LIONS, the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Case Management and Electronic Case Files (CM-ECF) database, an older database called PROMIS, and the USAO/ILN's microfiche file system using variations of plaintiff's name as search terms. Defs.' Mem., Decl. of Sharon Getty ("Getty Decl.") ¶ 6. She learned from these sources the caption and case number of plaintiff's criminal case and the lead Assistant United States Attorney ("AUSA") to whom the criminal case was assigned. Id. From the AUSA, the FOIA Contact "gather[ed] the requested records" and forwarded them to the EOUSA. Id. ¶ 7.

Upon receipt of Request 2014-0292, the FOIA Contact searched the LIONS database system, the federal district court's CM-ECF database, PROMIS and microfiche at the USAO/ILN. Id. ¶ 9. She determined that this request "was the same request that [the plaintiff] submitted in ... Request No. 2012–3870," and that she had provided these records previously to the EOUSA. Id. ¶ 10. She searched the plaintiff's criminal case file and was unable to locate "the requested videos and video stills." Id. In addition, the FOIA Contact obtained from the lead FBI agent assigned to the matter "[five] potentially responsive pages that the FBI had in its possession relating to this request." Id. ¶ 14. Neither of the EOUSA's declarants was aware of any other location where responsive records likely would be located. Id. ¶ 15; Jolly Decl. ¶ 28.

B. FOIA and Privacy Act Requests to the FBI
1. FOIPA Request Number 1260039-000

The plaintiff's many FOIA requests to the FBI all sought information related to the bank robbery for which he was convicted. For example, the plaintiff requested videotapes and photos taken in and around the bank at or near the time of the robbery, see generally First Hardy Decl. ¶¶ 6, 12, and other evidence, such as latent prints, retrieved from the crime scene, see id . ¶¶ 9, 11. These requests were combined and assigned a single tracking number, FOIPA Request Number 1260039-000. See id. ¶¶ 7, 10. The FBI responded by releasing nine pages out of 105 pages reviewed, after having withheld certain information under Exemptions 6, 7(C), and 7(E). Id. ¶ 14; see id. , Ex. I (Letter to plaintiff from David M. Hardy, Section Chief, Record/Information Dissemination Section, Records Management Division, FBI, dated September 29, 2014). In addition, the FBI withheld in full "a CD containing ... bank surveillance video material [under Exemption 7(E) ]." Id. ¶ 14.

The plaintiff administratively appealed the FBI's determination to the DOJ's Office of Information Policy ("OIP"), see id. ¶ 15, and the OIP affirmed, id. ¶ 17, explaining that "[t]he FBI properly withheld certain information because it is protected from disclosure under the FOIA pursuant to [Exemptions 6, 7(C) and 7(E) ]," id. , Ex. L (Letter to plaintiff from Sean R. O'Neill, Chief, Administrative Appeals Staff, OIP, dated February 23, 2015) at 1.

2. FOIPA Request Number 1260039-001

The plaintiff's next request to the FBI pertained to a mask worn by the bank robber. Id. ¶ 18; see id. , Ex. M (Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Request dated October 26, 2014). He was advised that the FBI "was unable to identify main file records responsive to [this] request." Id. ¶ 19; see id. , Ex. N (Letter to plaintiff from David M. Hardy dated November 6, 2014). The plaintiff appealed, see id. ¶ 20, and the OIP affirmed the FBI's determination, id. ¶ 22; see id. , Ex. Q (Letter to plaintiff from Christina D. Trolani, Attorney-Advisor, Administrative Appeals Staff, OIP, dated February 19, 2015) at 1.

3. FOIPA Request Number 1310417-000

The plaintiff sought records pertaining to latent fingerprints. Id. ¶ 23; see id. , Ex. R (Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Request dated October 29, 2014). The FBI responded by releasing 31 pages of records, having withheld certain information under Exemptions 6, 7(C), and 7(E). Id. ¶ 25; see id. , Ex. T (Letter to plaintiff from David M. Hardy dated December 19, 2014). Once again, the plaintiff submitted an administrative appeal to the OIP, id. ¶ 26, which affirmed the FBI's determination, id. ¶ 28; see id. , Ex. W (Letter to plaintiff from Sean R. O'Neill, Attorney-Advisor, Administrative Appeals Staff, OIP, dated April 14, 2015).

4. FOIPA Request Number 1260039-002

The plaintiff's next submission to the FBI "reiterat[ed] his previous request for records related to a copy of a dust mask." Id. ¶ 29; see id ., Ex. X (Letter to David M. Hardy from plaintiff dated November 2, 2014). Although the FBI could not search its indices for a specific piece of evidence, it suggested that "the information [the plaintiff] sought may have been under the purview of the [EOUSA]." Id. ¶ 30; see id. ¶ 48. Accordingly, the FBI forwarded this request to the EOUSA and notified the plaintiff of its action. Id. ¶ 30; see id. , Ex. Y (Letter to plaintiff from David M. Hardy dated December 1, 2014) at 1. The plaintiff administratively appealed this action, id. ¶ 31, and the OIP closed the appeal as duplicative of his prior appeal of the FBI's response to FOIPA Request Number 1260039-001, id. ¶ 33; see id. , Ex. BB (Letter to plaintiff from Matthew Hurd, Senior Attorney, OIP, dated March 9, 2015).

5. FOIPA Request Number 1320153-000

Again referring to videotapes, the plaintiff sought information about the chain of custody and authentication of specific recordings. Id. ¶ 34; see id. , Ex. CC (Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Request dated January 5, 2015). The FBI explained that "records responsive to his request were reviewed and released to him" previously with its response to FOIPA Request Number 1260039-000. Id. ¶ 25; see id. , Ex. DD (Letter to plaintiff from David M. Hardy dated January 21, 2015).

6. FOIPA Request Number 1217343—Referral from the EOUSA

In response to the plaintiff's FOIA request to the EOUSA, the EOUSA located records that had originated...

5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia – 2022
Dalal v. United States Dep't of Justice
"...3, [it] prohibits the disclosure of certain grand jury matters even in the face of a valid FOIA request." Ford v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 208 F. Supp. 3d 237, 248 (D.D.C. 2016) (quotations omitted). "The relevant inquiry for this Court is whether disclosure of the information requested would t..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York – 2023
Radar Online LLC v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation
"...event codes and URLs of internal law enforcement databases[ ] [are] properly withheld under Exemption 7(E)."); Ford v. Dep't of Just., 208 F. Supp. 3d 237, 253 (D.D.C. 2016) ("[The FBI] also withheld information pertaining to . . . whether an investigation is preliminary or full and the dat..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia – 2021
Ecological Rights Found. v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency
"...Exemption 6 analysis, "[t]he privacy interest at stake belongs to the individual, not the government agency." Ford v. Dep't of Justice, 208 F. Supp. 3d 237, 250 (D.D.C. 2016); accord Dep't of Justice v. Reps. Comm. for Freedom of Press ("Reps. Comm."), 489 U.S. 749, 763-65 (1989). A substan..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia – 2018
Garza v. U.S. Marshals Serv.
"...Likewise, internal website and email information may be properly withheld under Exemption 7(E). See, e.g. Ford v. Department of Justice, 208 F. Supp. 3d 237, 254 (D.D.C. 2016) (citing Tracy v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 191 F. Supp. 3d 83, 96 (D.D.C. 2016), aff'd, 664 Fed. Appx. 8 (D.C. Cir. 20..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia – 2018
Marck v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.
"...names and identifying information of their agents. See, e.g., Lesar v. DOJ , 636 F.2d 472, 487–88 (D.C. Cir. 1980) ; Ford v. DOJ , 208 F.Supp.3d 237, 250–51 (D.D.C. 2016). The only relevant public interest for purposes of Exemption 7(C) is that of shedding light on the agency's performance ..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia – 2022
Dalal v. United States Dep't of Justice
"...3, [it] prohibits the disclosure of certain grand jury matters even in the face of a valid FOIA request." Ford v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 208 F. Supp. 3d 237, 248 (D.D.C. 2016) (quotations omitted). "The relevant inquiry for this Court is whether disclosure of the information requested would t..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York – 2023
Radar Online LLC v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation
"...event codes and URLs of internal law enforcement databases[ ] [are] properly withheld under Exemption 7(E)."); Ford v. Dep't of Just., 208 F. Supp. 3d 237, 253 (D.D.C. 2016) ("[The FBI] also withheld information pertaining to . . . whether an investigation is preliminary or full and the dat..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia – 2021
Ecological Rights Found. v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency
"...Exemption 6 analysis, "[t]he privacy interest at stake belongs to the individual, not the government agency." Ford v. Dep't of Justice, 208 F. Supp. 3d 237, 250 (D.D.C. 2016); accord Dep't of Justice v. Reps. Comm. for Freedom of Press ("Reps. Comm."), 489 U.S. 749, 763-65 (1989). A substan..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia – 2018
Garza v. U.S. Marshals Serv.
"...Likewise, internal website and email information may be properly withheld under Exemption 7(E). See, e.g. Ford v. Department of Justice, 208 F. Supp. 3d 237, 254 (D.D.C. 2016) (citing Tracy v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 191 F. Supp. 3d 83, 96 (D.D.C. 2016), aff'd, 664 Fed. Appx. 8 (D.C. Cir. 20..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia – 2018
Marck v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.
"...names and identifying information of their agents. See, e.g., Lesar v. DOJ , 636 F.2d 472, 487–88 (D.C. Cir. 1980) ; Ford v. DOJ , 208 F.Supp.3d 237, 250–51 (D.D.C. 2016). The only relevant public interest for purposes of Exemption 7(C) is that of shedding light on the agency's performance ..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex