Montgomery v. IRS, No. 17-918, 2018 WL 4266087 (D.D.C. September 6, 2018) (Boasberg, J.)

Montgomery v. IRS, No. 17-918, 2018 WL 4266087 (D.D.C. September 6, 2018) (Boasberg, J.)

Re:  Requests for agency forms related to a confidential informant and other documents pertaining to the plaintiffs or their partnerships

Disposition:  Granting in part defendant's motion for summary judgment; granting in part plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment

• Exemption 7(D):  The court holds that the defendant's Glomar response to requests 1 through 5 was appropriate, explaining, "even though the identity of an informant may not be at risk in every case, to protect whistleblowers in cases where disclosure of the existence of records could lead to their identification, it must assert Glomar whenever an informant is involved."  The court holds that the defendant's "public declarations [that] detail its policy to issue a Glomar response when a requester seeks records pertaining to a confidential informant in order to protect whistleblowers" and in camera declarations sufficiently justify the response.
   
• Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search: The court holds that while the defendant sufficiently justified why it did not search its criminal investigative files, it did not sufficiently justify why it did not search litigation files and Whistleblower Office database.  The court explains, "it is entirely plausible that previous litigation files might contain information unrelated to a confidential informant but responsive to Plaintiffs’ requests" and "even if the Whistleblower Office was not a likely place to search for the records," the defendant must explain in its affidavit why "no other record system was likely to produce responsive documents."