Speight v. Federal Bureau of Prisons ( 2009 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
_____________________________________
)
KENNETH EUGENE SPEIGHT, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 07-0481 (RCL)
)
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, )
)
Defendant. )
_____________________________________ )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Kenneth Eugene Speight sued defendant Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”)
under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). 5 U.S.C. § 552. The BOP has submitted a
renewed motion for summary judgment, along with supporting materials. Because the BOP has
now demonstrated that all non-exempt information responsive to the plaintiff’s FOIA request has
been disclosed to the plaintiff, and has justified all the withheld information under one or more of
the lawful exemptions, the BOP’s motion for summary judgment granted.
Background
In response to the plaintiff’s FOIA request, the defendant initially located a single six-
page document, of which it released portions of four pages to the plaintiff and withheld the
remaining information. One of the pages in that six-page document referred to “Supporting
Documentation,” which was not released, justified as exempt from release, or described.
Therefore, the Court denied defendant’s first motion for summary judgment without prejudice
and ordered the BOP to make additional submissions to clarify genuine issues regarding the
Supporting Documentation and the date of the only identified responsive document. In addition,
the BOP was required to submit all the Supporting Documentation under seal for an in camera
review. See Mem. op. & order, Aug. 11, 2008.
The defendant has complied with the Court’s Order. Along with its renewed motion, it
has submitted two additional explanatory declarations and a Vaughn index for 98 new pages of
responsive materials. It has also submitted under seal the 98 pages of Supporting Documentation
for in camera review. In these additional materials, the BOP explains that it had not originally
viewed the Supporting Documentation as being within the scope of the plaintiff’s FOIA request
and had not reviewed the Supporting Documentation for release. After receiving the Court’s
order and reviewing the 98 pages of Supporting Documentation, it released to the plaintiff 22
pages without redaction and 3 pages with redactions. For the three redacted but released pages,
the Vaughn index asserts FOIA Exemptions 7(C) and 7(F), which protect information compiled
for law-enforcement purposes that, if released could reasonably be expected to constitute an
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy or which could endanger the life or safety of an
individual. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C) and (7)(F). Another seventy-three pages of Supporting
Documentation were withheld in full on the basis of one or more exemptions applicable to
records compiled for law-enforcement purposes and which protect personal privacy, confidential
sources, investigative techniques, or could compromise an individual’s safety, or to protect
internal policies of the BOP. (See Def.’s Stmt. of Mat. Fact ¶ 9 (identifying FOIA Exemptions 5
U.S.C. § 552(b)(2) and (b)(7)(C) through(b)(7)(F).) Each redaction or withheld page was
justified in the Vaughn index by one or more of the specific exemptions allowed under the FOIA.
The plaintiff acknowledges that he received additional documents, and raises no new
objections or disputes of material fact to the defendant’s renewed motion for summary judgment.
-2-
Rather, the plaintiff incorporates by reference his prior opposition. The in camera review of the
98 pages of Supporting Documentation has been completed.
Discussion
Summary judgment is permitted only when “there is no genuine issue as to any material
fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c);
see Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). In a FOIA suit, an agency is
entitled to summary judgment once it bears its burden of demonstrating that no material facts are
in dispute and that all information that falls within the class requested either has been produced,
is unidentifiable, or is exempt from disclosure. Students Against Genocide v. Dep’t of State, 257
F.3d 828, 833 (D.C. Cir. 2001); Weisberg v. Dep’t of Justice, 627 F.2d 365, 368 (D.C. Cir.
1980).
Having reviewed the entire record, including the BOP’s additional submissions, the Court
concludes that the defendant has properly released all responsive and segregable information to
the plaintiff that it is obligated by law to release. On this record, and in the absence of any new
issue of material fact raised by the plaintiff, the defendant is entitled to summary judgment.
Accordingly, a final order granting summary judgment to the defendant accompanies this
memorandum opinion.
/s/
ROYCE C. LAMBERTH
DATED: March 5, 2009 Chief Judge
-3-