Sieverding v. United States¸ No. 22-198, 2024 WL 2941737 (D.N.H. June 11, 2024) (Elliott, J.)

Sieverding v. United States¸ No. 22-198, 2024 WL 2941737 (D.N.H. June 11, 2024) (Elliott, J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning plaintiff

Disposition:  Granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment

• Exemption 5, Deliberative Process Privilege & Attorney Work-Product Privilege:  The court holds that “[b]ecause the DOJ properly withheld all seven responsive pages under Exemption 5, the defendants are entitled to summary judgment on [the FOIA claim].”  “The defendants argue that pages 1-4, an AUSA’s notes for witness examination during a civil litigation, are exempt from disclosure because they are protected by the attorney work-product privilege.”  “The court agrees.”  “The attorney work-product ‘privilege protects work done by an attorney in anticipation of, or during, litigation from disclosure to the opposing party.’”  “Notes that a government attorney prepares for use in witness examination during litigation are quintessential attorney work-product material and, as such, protected from disclosure under Exemption 5.”
  
  The court also finds that “[t]he DOJ properly withheld pages 5-7 under the deliberative process privilege.”  “Those documents reflect internal government communications considering appropriate responses to [plaintiff’s] [FOIA] requests.”  “Therefore, they are protected from disclosure.”
   
• Exemption 6; Exemption 7(C):  The court holds that “[p]ages 5, 6, and 7 contain the names, email addresses, or both of government employees involved in responding to [plaintiff’s] requests.”  “[Plaintiff] has not shown, or attempted to show, that there is any public interest in the disclosure of this information.”  “Therefore, the DOJ properly withheld pages 5-7 under Exemption 7(C).”  “The defendants are entitled to summary judgment on [the FOIA claim] as to those pages for that additional reason.”