Arden v. U.S., No. 13-3657, 2014 WL 2924960 (E.D. Pa. June 27, 2014) (Alejandro, J.)

Arden v. U.S., No. 13-3657, 2014 WL 2924960 (E.D. Pa. June 27, 2014) (Alejandro, J.)

Re: Request for financial reimbursement records for witnesses and prosecutors who were involved in plaintiff's criminal prosecution

Disposition: Granting defendant's motion to dismiss

• Litigation Considerations, Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies:  The court holds that "[d]efendant's motion to dismiss is granted as to Plaintiff's supplemental FOIA request."  The court agrees with defendant's argument "that Plaintiff failed to exhaust the administrative process with regard to various FOIA requests that were not part of his initial FOIA application but, rather, were made for the first time during the administrative appeal process."  The court finds that "in the appeal of the Agency's response to the FOIA request, Plaintiff expanded the scope of his requests."
   
• Exemption 6:  The court holds that, "[b]ecause this Court concludes that the Agency properly withheld the names of witnesses under Exemption 7(C), this Court need not (nor will it) address the potential application of Exemption 6."
   
• Exemption 7(C): First, the court notes that "[i]n this case, pursuant to Exemption 7(C), the Agency withheld the names of individuals who met with the Assistant United States Attorneys prior to trial and later testified in Plaintiff's criminal trial."  The court finds that "[s]ince Plaintiff specifically requested documents relating to his criminal prosecution, the first prerequisite of Exemption 7(C) is met here."  The court holds that "[c]onsistent with the case law cited, . . . these individuals all have a viable privacy interest in not having their identities revealed."  The court finds that "[b]ecause Plaintiff has failed to identify any viable public interest that outweighs the privacy interests involved, . . . Defendant properly withheld information pertaining to the witnesses' identities under the FOIA's Exemption 7(C)."