Mosby v. Hunt ( 2010 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Joseph Mosby,
Plaintiff,
v. Civil Action No. 09-1917 (JDB)
Wanda Hunt et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In what remains of this action brought under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5
U.S.C. § 552, defendant has submitted in unredacted form for in camera review the redacted
documents that were released to plaintiff.1 See Memorandum Opinion of May 5, 2010, at 8-9
(finding defendant’s invocation of FOIA exemptions 2 and 7(F) unsubstantiated). In the
accompanying Supplemental Declaration of Larry Collins (“Collins Supp. Decl.”), Collins states
that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) is no longer relying upon exemption 2. Id. ¶ 5. Hence, the
remaining issue is whether BOP properly withheld information under exemption 7(F).
FOIA exemption 7(F) protects from disclosure “records or information compiled for law
enforcement purposes” that “could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety
of any individual.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(F). “Within limits, the Court defers to the agency's
assessment of danger.” Amuso v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 600 F. Supp. 2d 78, 101 (D.D.C. 2009).
“In general, this exemption has been interpreted to apply to names and identifying information of
1
The documents are a one-page Memorandum dated March 30, 2009, and a one-page
form captioned “Request for Transfer/Application of Management Variable,” also dated March
30, 2009.
law enforcement officers, witnesses, confidential informants and other third persons who may be
unknown to the requester.” Antonelli v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 623 F. Supp. 2d 55, 58
(D.D.C. 2009) (citations omitted). In a novel twist, defendant contends that release of the
redacted information creates a safety risk mostly to plaintiff.2 See Collins Supp. Decl. ¶¶ 9-11.
By its terms, exemption 7(F) protects “any individual,” and, as observed by another judge of this
Court – albeit in the context of third parties -- “the Court can imagine no situation in which an
individual would [knowingly] waive his or her right to physical safety-which is the right
protected by Exemption 7(F).” Linn v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 1995 WL 417810 *12 (D.D.C.,
June 6, 1995); but cf. Ray v. F.B.I., 441 F. Supp. 2d 27, 37 (D.D.C. 2006) (“In light of
[plaintiff’s] apparent waiver [of exemption 7(D)’s confidential informant protection], the Court
is not inclined to protect plaintiff from information about himself.”) (citations omitted). Plaintiff
does not appear to have waived the protection contemplated by exemption 7(F). See Pl.’s
Memorandum of Law and Points of Authoritive (sic) in Support of Above-Requested Relief
[Dkt. No. 20] at 7 (asserting that “[b]ecause that description does not detail whether Plaintiff was
in danger or the sort of danger to others, the vague claim of this exemption should not be
sustained at this early stage”).
The Court is satisfied from its perusal of the redacted and unredacted documents and
Collins’ justification, see Supp. Decl. ¶¶ 8-12, that BOP reasonably determined that the
disclosure of the withheld information could “jeopardize the safety of individuals(s),” including
2
The Court did not locate any decisions, published or unpublished, addressing this
particular application of exemption 7(F).
2
plaintiff. Id. ¶ 8. Hence, it properly redacted minimal information from the released documents
under FOIA exemption 7(F). A separate final order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
s/
JOHN D. BATES
Dated: July 15, 2010 United States District Judge
3