Biear v. DOJ, No. 14-1488, 2023 WL 4868443 (M.D. Pa. July 31, 2023) (Mariani, J.)

Biear v. DOJ, No. 14-1488, 2023 WL 4868443 (M.D. Pa. July 31, 2023) (Mariani, J.)

Re:  Requests for records concerning plaintiff

Disposition:  Adopting as modified magistrate judge’s report and recommendation; granting in part and denying in part defendant’s motion for summary judgment; granting in part and denying in part plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment

• Exemption 3; Exemption 7(D); Exemption 7(E):  “Having reviewed the documents in which information was withheld pursuant to Exemptions 3, 7(D), and 7(E), and to which [plaintiff] objected, the Court concludes these exemptions were properly applied in every case for the reasons set forth in the R&R.”  “Moreover, the information withheld was not reasonably segregable from non-exempt information.”

• Exemption 6; Exemption 7(C):  The court holds that “[t]he FBI’s application of these exemptions was generally proper, with two categorical exceptions.”  “The FBI asserted the exemption to protect the privacy of government agents as well as third parties who either provided information to the FBI, were ‘merely mentioned’ in the records, were of ‘investigative interest,’ or were victims.”  “Specifically, the FBI subcategorized its application of Exemption 6/7(C) as protecting the names and identifying information of (1) FBI special agents and support personnel; (2) third parties who provided information to the FBI; (3) third party victims; (4) non-FBI federal government personnel; (5) third parties merely mentioned; (6) local law enforcement personnel; (7) third parties of investigative interest to the FBI and/or other law enforcement agencies; and (8) commercial institution personnel.”  “The Court starts with Exemption 7(C) as it applies more logically to the records at hand, and because, as the broader of the two, proper redaction under Exemption 7(C) renders evaluation under Exemption 6 unnecessary.”  The court relates that “[plaintiff] does not challenge that the records at issue were compiled for law enforcement purposes, so the first requirement of 7(C) is satisfied.”  The court finds that, as to the majority of these withholdings, “[t]he privacy interests of these third parties, whether law enforcement agents, sources, or individuals of investigative interest, are . . . significant.”  “When balanced against the only relevant public interest, the privacy interests prevail.”  “The records at issue shed little light on the FBI’s ‘performance of its statutory duties.’”  The court also finds that “the matter withheld was not reasonably segregable from information not covered by the exemption.”  “The application of Exemption 7(C) was therefore generally proper.”
  
  However, the court finds that “[t]wo categories of information were improperly exempted.”  “First, Exemption 7(C) was applied too broadly to two FBI Electronic Communications/FD-1057s (‘ECs’).”  “These ECs regarded the FBI’s intent to interview certain witnesses and listed questions to be posed to the witnesses.”  “While identifying information of third parties contained within those questions must remain redacted, the questions as a whole must not.”  “Through these two documents, unlike most exempted under 7(C), the public stands to gain some understanding of what the FBI is up to, and therefore the extent of the redactions must be reduced in favor of the public interest.”  “Second, Exemption 7(C) was not properly asserted on behalf of individuals who are deceased, because ‘[p]ersons who are deceased have no privacy interest in nondisclosure of their identities.’”