Kearns v. FAA, No. 17-434, 2018 WL 2223659 (D.D.C. May 15, 2018) (Boasberg, J.)

Kearns v. FAA, No. 17-434, 2018 WL 2223659 (D.D.C. May 15, 2018) (Boasberg, J.)

Re:  Request for plaintiff's tenure at FAA

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

• Litigation Considerations, Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies:  The court holds that, "[plaintiff] seems to assert that because he undertook [his later unexhausted] request as a means of correcting or supplementing his [earlier request], he was only required to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to the [earlier] request."  The court finds that, "[plaintiff] is attempting to leapfrog those administrative checks by claiming exhaustion of his [later] request on the coattails of his [earlier] appeal."  "Rejecting this maneuver, the Court instead agrees with the FAA that he did not exhaust the available administrative remedies."
   
• Exemption 5, Deliberative Process Privilege & Attorney-Client Privilege:  "[T]he Court concludes that the FAA appropriately applied Exemption 5 to certain materials in the released investigation files."  "After reviewing the relevant documents in camera, the Court is assured that the information redacted under this exemption is, in fact, either legal advice from FAA attorneys falling under the attorney-client privilege or 'deliberative material' the disclosure of which would 'discourage candid discussion' within the agency regarding drug-abatement activities and internal investigations."
   
• Exemption 6:  "[T]he Court will grant summary judgment for Defendant with respect to the agency's withholdings under Exemption 6."  The court relates that defendant withheld "the names, other identifying information, and personal data of multiple third parties."  "[T]he Court agrees with the FAA that the threat to privacy arising from the disclosure of the redacted personal information is substantial and real, rather than speculative."  "Disclosing such information would associate third parties with internal agency investigations and threatens to identify them as witnesses to or victims of alleged workplace misconduct."  "Looking to the other side of the scale, the Court finds the public interest in disclosure to be nil."  "[Plaintiff] is unable to explain how the public would be served by knowing the sensitive personal information of those involved in the FAA's internal investigations."  "While Plaintiff may have his own interest in identifying his accusers, FOIA is not concerned with the desires of the individual requester."
   
• Litigation Considerations, "Reasonably Segregable" Requirements:  The court "[f]ind[s] that the agency satisfied its obligation to release all reasonably segregable information[.]"  "The Court agrees [with defendant], both because the FAA employees who processed the records for release have averred that they reviewed the responsive records and that all reasonably segregable material was provided to Plaintiff, . . . and because the Court has itself reviewed the withholdings in camera and is satisfied that non-exempt information is in fact inextricably intertwined."