Judicial Watch, Inc. v. DOJ, No. 13-0949, 2014 WL 1878022 (D.D.C. May 12, 2014) (Huvelle, J.)

Judicial Watch, Inc. v. DOJ, No. 13-0949, 2014 WL 1878022 (D.D.C. May 12, 2014) (Huvelle, J.)

Re: Request for records concerning National LGBT Bar Association's 2012 Lavender Law Conference and Career Fair

Disposition: Granting defendant's motion for summary judgment; denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment

• Exemption 5, Deliberative Process Privilege:  "[T]he Court will grant defendant's motion and deny plaintiff's motion."  The court agrees with defendant's explanation that "'[t]hese exchanges ... reflect the various stages of the decisionmaking process ... [and i]f such communications are made public, Department employees will be much more circumspect in their discussions.'" Additionally, the court finds that "[p]laintiff has presented neither 'contrary evidence in the record ... nor evidence of bad faith' that the redacted information 'logically falls within the claimed exemption ....' and therefore it is has failed to withstand its burden on defendant's motion for summary judgment."

• Litigation Considerations, Pleadings:  The court "is satisfied that defendant timely raised its reliance on Exemption 5."  The court holds that "while the government certainly could have been clearer in claiming that both Exemption (5)-(2) and Exemption (6)-(4) applied to the two-page e-mail chain at issue in this case, and it could have referenced the relevant footnotes from [defendant's] Declaration in its summary judgment motion, its failure to do so is not fatal."  The court explains that "[r]aising the issue in the affidavit and discussing Exemption (5)-(2) in the summary judgment motion sufficiently illustrate defendant's reliance on Exemption 5 for redacting parts of the relevant e-mail chain in its 'original proceeding' within the meaning of Maydak."

• Exemption 6:  The court holds that "[b]ased on its in camera review of the emails, [it] agrees with the agency's determination that based on the very small number of individuals that are referenced, their identities–which plaintiff agrees can be protected–could easily be determined based on the context of the e-mails."  Additionally, "[b]alancing this privacy interest against, at most, the relatively inconsequential (if not non-existent) interests identified by the plaintiff, the Court concludes that summary judgment would be justified under Exemption 6 as well."  The court relates that plaintiff argued that there was a public interest because "'the discussion by DOJ employees' sexual orientation constitute[s] puerile behavior by government employees about which the public has the right to know.'"

• Litigation Considerations, "Reasonable Segregable" Requirements:  The court "is satisfied that defendant has fulfilled this burden based on [defendant's] declaration" which "classifies each of the documents redacted or withheld by [defendant] in one or more of ten specific categories and, more importantly, describes the information that was redacted or withheld in great detail."  The court notes that "[t]hough plaintiff does not dispute that the government produced all of the reasonably segregable information in this case, the Court has 'an affirmative duty to consider the segregability issue sua sponte.'"