Bagwell v. U.S. Department of Education ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                              UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
    RYAN BAGWELL,
    Plaintiff
    v.                                                Civil Action No. 15-334 (CKK)
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
    Defendant
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    (April 26, 2016)
    Plaintiff Ryan Bagwell, who is proceeding pro se, submitted a Freedom of Information
    Act (“FOIA”) request to the United States Department of Education seeking records pertaining
    to the Department’s review of compliance by the Pennsylvania State University (“Penn State” or
    “the University”) with the Clery Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1092(f), which imposes requirements regarding
    the tracking and disclosure of certain campus crime statistics on institutions participating in the
    Federal financial aid programs, as well as correspondence between the agency and certain law
    firms, consulting firms, and related individuals. The Department ultimately produced certain
    materials, some of which were redacted, and withheld other materials, relying on several FOIA
    exemptions. Dissatisfied with the Department’s withholding of materials, Plaintiff filed this
    action. At Plaintiff’s request, Defendant produced several Vaughn declarations in order to justify
    the materials withheld. Now before the Court are Defendant U.S. Department of Education’s
    [19] Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff Ryan Bagwell’s [21] Cross-Motion for
    Summary Judgment. The parties dispute the agency’s application of the several FOIA
    exemptions on which the agency relies. Upon consideration of the pleadings, 1 the relevant legal
    1
    The Court’s consideration has focused on the following documents:
    •   Def.’s Mot. for Summary Judgment (“Def.’s Mot.”), ECF No. 19;
    1
    authorities, and the record for purposes of this motion, the Court GRANTS Defendant U.S.
    Department of Education’s [19] Motion for Summary Judgment and DENIES Plaintiff Ryan
    Bagwell’s [21] Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court GRANTS summary judgment
    to Defendant in full, and this case is dismissed in its entirety.
    I. BACKGROUND
    A. Statutory Framework
    The Court first briefly reviews the Clery Act, which is an essential element in the
    background of this case. Next the Court provides an overview of the several exemptions from
    disclosure under FOIA on which Defendant relies in withholding or redacting materials that are
    responsive to Plaintiff’s FOIA request.
    a. The Clery Act
    Pursuant to the Clery Act, institutions of higher education participating in the Federal
    financial aid program are required to collect certain “information with respect to campus crime
    statistics and campus security policies of that institution.” 20 U.S.C. § 1092(f)(1). In addition,
    those institutions are required to “prepare, publish, and distribute … an annual security report”
    •   Declaration of Ann Marie Pedersen (“Pedersen Decl.”), ECF No. 19-1;
    •   Declaration of Shelley Shepherd (“Shepherd Decl.”), ECF No. 19-3;
    •   Pl.’s Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. & Pl.’s Cross-Mot. for Summary Judgment (“Pl.’s Cross-
    Mot.”), ECF No. 21;
    • Def.’s Mem. of Points & Auth. in Supp. of Def.’s Mot. (“Def.’s Response”), ECF No. 24;
    • Supp. Declaration of Ann Marie Pedersen (“Supp. Pedersen Decl.”), ECF No. 24-1
    • Supp. Declaration of Shelley Shepherd (“Supp. Shepherd Decl.”), ECF No. 24-2; and
    • Pl.’s Reply to Def.’s Resp. in Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Summary Judgment (“Pl.’s Reply”),
    ECF No. 26.
    In an exercise of its discretion, the Court finds that holding oral argument in this action would
    not be of assistance in rendering a decision. See LCvR 7(f).
    2
    regarding those policies and statistics. 
    Id. The Act
    establishes the minimum requirements for
    those annual reports, requiring the reporting of “[s]tatistics concerning the occurrence on
    campus, in or on noncampus buildings or property, and on public property” of certain crimes and
    other incidents. 
    Id. § 1091(f)(1)(F).
    In addition to these substantive requirements, the Act also
    establishes a process for reviewing institutional compliance with the Act’s requirements. See 
    id. § 1099c–1.
    Specifically, the Act requires that the agency “provide to an institution of higher
    education an adequate opportunity to review and respond to any program review report and
    relevant materials related to the report before any final program review report is issued.” 
    Id. § 1099c–1(b)(6).
    Furthermore, the Act requires that the agency “review and take into
    consideration an institution of higher education’s response in any final program review report or
    audit determination, and include in the report or determination—
    (A) a written statement addressing the institution of higher education’s response;
    (B) a written statement of the basis for such report or determination; and
    (C) a copy of the institution’s response[.]”
    
    Id. § 1099c–1(b)(7).
    Finally, the review process is governed by a confidentiality provision. The Secretary of
    Education is required to
    maintain and preserve at all times the confidentiality of any program review
    report until the requirements of paragraphs (6) and (7) are met, and until a final
    program review is issued … except that the Secretary shall promptly disclose any
    and all program review reports to the institution of higher education under review.
    3
    20 U.S.C. § 1099c–1(b)(8). 2 Paragraphs (6) and (7), which govern the timeline of the
    applicability of the confidentiality provision, including the requirements for the review process
    described immediately above.
    b. FOIA Exemptions
    Exemption 3
    Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3), known as FOIA Exemption 3, FOIA does not apply to
    materials that are “specifically exempted from disclosure by statute … if that statute—
    (A)(i) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to
    leave no discretion on the issue; or
    (ii) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of
    matters to be withheld[.]”
    5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3). 3 “Under [this] exemption, the [agency] need only show that the statute
    claimed is one of exemption as contemplated by Exemption 3 and that the withheld material falls
    within the statute.” Larson v. Dep’t of State, 
    565 F.3d 857
    , 865 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (citing
    Fitzgibbon v. CIA, 
    911 F.2d 755
    , 761-62 (D.C. Cir. 1990)).
    Exemption 6
    Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6), known as FOIA Exemption 6, FOIA is inapplicable to
    “personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly
    unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3)(6). “The Supreme Court has
    2
    In addition, this provision includes an exception, not relevant here, for communications by the
    agency with specified State and other organizations regarding the ongoing review. See 20 U.S.C.
    § 1099c–1(b)(5)-(6).
    3
    Pursuant to this statutory provision, materials are also considered exempted from disclosure by
    a statute if that statute was “enacted after the date of enactment of the OPEN FOIA Act of 2009,
    [and] specifically cites to this paragraph.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3)(B). This provision is not
    applicable to the case at hand.
    4
    interpreted the phrase ‘similar files’ to include all information that applies to a particular
    individual.” Lepelletier v. F.D.I.C., 
    164 F.3d 37
    , 46 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (citing United States Dep’t
    of State v. Washington Post Co., 
    456 U.S. 595
    , 602 (1982)). To apply this provision “a court must
    weigh the ‘privacy interest in non-disclosure against the public interest in the release of the
    records in order to determine whether, on balance, the disclosure would work a clearly
    unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.’ ” 
    Id. (quoting National
    Ass’n of Retired Fed.
    Employees v. Horner, 
    879 F.2d 873
    , 874 (D.C. Cir. 1989).
    “ ‘[T]he only relevant public interest in the FOIA balancing analysis [is] the extent to
    which disclosure of the information sought would ‘she[d] light on an agency’s performance of its
    statutory duties' or otherwise let citizens know ‘what their government is up to.’ ” 
    Id. (quoting United
    States Dep’t of Defense v. FLRA, 
    510 U.S. 487
    , 497 (1994)) (alterations in original).
    “Information that ‘reveals little or nothing about an agency’s own conduct’ does not further the
    statutory purpose; thus the public has no cognizable interest in the release of such information.”
    Beck v. Dep’t of Justice, 
    997 F.2d 1489
    , 1493 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (citing U.S. Dep’t of Justice v.
    Reporters Comm. For Freedom of Press, 
    489 U.S. 749
    , 773 (1989)).
    Exemptions 7(A), 7(C), 7(D), and 7(E)
    Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7), FOIA is inapplicable to
    records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the
    extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information
    (A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings,
    (B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication,
    (C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of
    personal privacy, (D) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a
    confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency or authority or any
    private institution which furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the
    case of a record or information compiled by criminal law enforcement authority
    in the course of a criminal investigation or by an agency conducting a lawful
    national security intelligence investigation, information furnished by a
    confidential source, (E) would disclose techniques and procedures for law
    5
    enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law
    enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be
    expected to risk circumvention of the law, or (F) could reasonably be expected to
    endanger the life or physical safety of any individual;
    5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7) (emphasis added). As relevant here, this provision encompasses Exemption
    7(A), relating to interference with enforcement proceedings; Exemption 7(C), relating to the
    invasion of personal privacy; Exemption 7(D), relating to the disclosure of the identity of
    confidential sources; and Exemption 7(E), relating to the disclosure of certain information
    regarding law enforcement investigations or prosecutions.
    As a threshold matter, with respect to each of these exemptions, the agency must show
    that the records “are compiled for law enforcement purposes.” 
    Id. To do
    so, the agency “need
    only ‘establish a rational nexus between the investigation and one of the agency’s law
    enforcement duties and a connection between an individual or incident and a possible security
    risk or violation of federal law.’ ” Blackwell v. F.B.I., 
    646 F.3d 37
    , 40 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (quoting
    Campbell v. Dep’t of Justice, 
    164 F.3d 20
    , 32 (D.C. Cir. 1998)). The Court now provides an
    overview of each of the subsidiary exemptions under this paragraph on which the agency relies.
    Exemption 7(A)
    Under Exemption 7(A), “records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes”
    are exempt from disclosure under FOIA to the extent the disclosure of those materials “could
    reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A).
    “The principal purpose of Exemption 7(A) is to prevent disclosures which might prematurely
    reveal the government's cases in court, its evidence and strategies, or the nature, scope, direction,
    and focus of its investigations, and thereby enable suspects to establish defenses or fraudulent
    alibis or to destroy or alter evidence.” Maydak v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 
    218 F.3d 760
    , 762 (D.C.
    6
    Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). “Another recognized goal of Exemption 7(A) is to prevent
    litigants from identifying and intimidating or harassing witnesses.” 
    Id. (citation omitted).
    First, the government must identify either “ ‘a concrete prospective law enforcement
    proceeding’ ” or an enforcement proceeding that is “pending or reasonably anticipated.” Boyd v.
    Criminal Div. of U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 
    475 F.3d 381
    , 386 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (quoting Bevis v.
    Dep’t of State, 
    801 F.3d 1386
    , 1389 (D.C. Cir. 1980). Second, “the government must show that
    disclosure of those documents would, in some particular, discernible way, disrupt, impede, or
    otherwise harm the enforcement proceeding.” North v. Walsh, 
    881 F.2d 1088
    , 1097 (D.C. Cir.
    1989); see also 
    id. (“[A]n agency
    seeking to shield records or information behind exemption
    7(A) must show that disclosure could reasonably be expected perceptibly to interfere with an
    enforcement proceeding.”) (emphasis in original).
    Exemption 7(C)
    Materials compiled for law enforcement purposes are exempt from disclosure under
    FOIA, under Exemption 7(C), where such disclosure “could reasonably be expected to constitute
    an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C). “To determine whether
    Exemption 7(C) applies, [a court must] ‘balance the privacy interests that would be compromised
    by disclosure against the public interest in release of the requested information.’ ” Sussman v.
    U.S. Marshals Serv., 
    494 F.3d 1106
    , 1115 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (quoting Davis v. U.S. DOJ, 
    968 F.2d 1276
    , 1281 (D.C. Cir. 1992)). “Where a legitimate privacy interest is implicated, the requester
    must ‘(1) show that the public interest sought to be advanced is a significant one, an interest
    more specific than having the information for its own sake, and (2) show the information is
    likely to advance that interest.’ ” 
    Id. (quoting Boyd,
    475 F.3d at 387).
    7
    With respect to the privacy interests protected, “the exemption protects the privacy
    interests of all persons mentioned in law enforcement records, whether they be investigators,
    suspects, witnesses, or informants.” 
    Id. (citation omitted).
    By contrast, with respect to the public
    interest considered, “ ‘the only public interest relevant for purposes of Exemption 7(C) is one
    that focuses on the citizens’ right to be informed about what their government is up to.’ ” 
    Id. (quoting Davis,
    968 F.2d at 1282).
    Exemption 7(D)
    Under Exemption 7(D), materials compiled for law enforcement purposes are exempt
    from disclosure where, as relevant here, such disclosure “could reasonably be expected to
    disclose the identity of a confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency or
    authority or any private institution which furnished information on a confidential basis.”
    5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(D). The Supreme Court has explained that the word “confidential,” in this
    context, “refers to a degree of confidentiality less than total secrecy.” U.S. Dep’t of Justice v.
    Landano, 
    508 U.S. 165
    , 174 (1993). Rather, “[a] source should be deemed confidential if the
    source furnished information with the understanding that the [agency] would not divulge the
    communication except to the extent the [agency] thought necessary for law enforcement
    purposes.” 
    Id. Exemption 7(E)
           Finally, under Exemption 7(E), materials compiled for law enforcement purposes are
    exempt from disclosure where disclosure “would disclose techniques and procedures for law
    enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement
    investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk
    circumvention of the law.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(E). To qualify for this exemption, it is necessary,
    8
    first, that the production of the requested materials would disclose either “techniques or
    procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions” or “guidelines for law
    enforcement investigations or prosecutions.” 
    Id. Second, materials
    are only exempt from
    disclosure under Exemption 7(E) “if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk
    circumvention of the law.” Id.; see 
    Blackwell, 646 F.3d at 42
    .
    The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has emphasized
    the “relatively low bar for the agency to justify withholding” with respect to the latter prong of
    this exemption. 
    Blackwell, 646 F.3d at 42
    . “[T]he exemption looks not just for circumvention of
    the law, but for a risk of circumvention; not just for an actual or certain risk of circumvention, but
    for an expected risk; not just for an undeniably or universally expected risk, but for a reasonably
    expected risk; and not just for certitude of a reasonably expected risk, but for the chance of a
    reasonably expected risk.” Mayer Brown LLP v. I.R.S., 
    562 F.3d 1190
    , 1193 (D.C. Cir. 2009)
    (emphasis added).
    B. Factual Background
    On April 30, 2014, Plaintiff submitted a FOIA request to the Department of Education,
    requesting records pertaining to the agency’s review of Penn State’s compliance with the Clery
    Act, as well as correspondence between the agency and the Freeh Group, as well as certain other
    outside law firms, consulting firms, and associated individuals. See Defendant’s Statement of
    Material Facts as to Which There is no Genuine Dispute (“Def.’s Statement”), ECF No. 19, ¶ 1.
    The Department of Education conducted a search in response to the request, which resulted in
    the identification of approximately 54,000 pages of responsive materials. See Pedersen Decl.
    ¶¶ 3, 7. Pursuant to a schedule proposed by the parties and this Court’s orders, Plaintiff identified
    five categories of materials withheld for which he requested the preparation of a Vaughn index or
    9
    declaration justifying the withholding. See ECF Nos. 12-13. Specifically, Plaintiff’s request
    covered the following categories:
    1. Audit Trails/Documents Intended to Support the Validity of the University’s Crime
    Statistics;
    2. The Institutional Response to program review report;
    3. Records of Discussion/Interview Notes to the extent they reflect communication or
    interaction with employees of the Freeh Group;
    4. Any records sent between the Department’s Office of Student Aid (“FSA”) and the Freeh
    Group (note that during our conference call, it was stated that a limited number of written
    correspondence between the Freeh Group and FSA exist, perhaps only one e-mail), and;
    5. Responsive records in the possession of the Inspector General.
    Pedersen Decl., Ex. A (letter from Plaintiff), at 1. Plaintiff also requested a declaration addressing
    the volume and frequency of the communications between the Department of Education and the
    Freeh Group. 
    Id. at 2.
    In response, the Department of Education provided two Vaughn declarations from agency
    officials that, together, encompassed the five categories of documents delineated above. See
    Def.’s Statement ¶¶ 5-6. A declaration of Ann Marie Pedersen executed on July 24, 2015,
    describes the agency’s withholdings with respect to the first four categories of document listed
    above. 
    Id. ¶ 5;
    see generally Pedersen Decl. A declaration of Shelley Shepherd, Assistant
    Counsel to the Inspector General in the Department of Education, executed the same day,
    covered the final category of documents, which pertain solely to the Office of the Inspector
    General. Def.’s Statement ¶ 6; see generally Shepherd Decl. The following chart summarizes the
    agency’s reliance on various FOIA exemptions with respect to the several categories of
    materials:
    10
    Category of Materials          Agency Response           Exemptions Invoked
    Audit Trails/Documents         Withheld in full          7(A) – entire category withheld
    Intended to Support the                                  7(E) – entire category withheld
    Validity of the University’s
    Crime Statistics
    Institutional Response to      Withheld in full          3 – entire category withheld
    Program Review Report                                    7(A) – entire category withheld
    6 & 7(C) – subset of materials withheld
    Records of                     No responsive             n/a
    Discussion/Interview Notes     records
    Any Records Sent Between       85 pages of emails        2 pages redacted pursuant to 6, 7(A), 7(C), 7(D)
    Department’s FSA and           provided; 23 of           21 pages redacted pursuant to 7(A)
    Freeh Group                    these pages
    included redactions
    Responsive records of the      35 pages of emails        7(A) – entire set of documents withheld
    Inspector General              withheld in full          7(C) – subset of materials withheld
    7(E) – subset of materials withheld
    After reviewing the declarations provided by the agency, Plaintiff informed Defendant
    and the Court that he was challenging all of the exemptions on which Defendant relied with
    respect to these five categories of documents. 4 Def.’s Statement ¶ 7. The parties’ cross-motions
    for summary judgment regarding these contested issues are now ripe for review.
    II. LEGAL STANDARD
    Congress enacted FOIA to “pierce the veil of administrative secrecy and to open agency
    action to the light of public scrutiny.” Dep’t of the Air Force v. Rose, 
    425 U.S. 352
    , 361 (1976)
    (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Congress remained sensitive to the need to
    achieve balance between these objectives and the potential that “legitimate governmental and
    private interests could be harmed by release of certain types of information.” Critical Mass
    Energy Project v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 
    975 F.2d 871
    , 872 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (en banc)
    4
    Plaintiff does not challenge the sufficiency of the agency’s declaration with respect to the Freeh
    Group. In any event, the Court would find the agency’s explanation sufficient. See Supp.
    Pedersen Decl. ¶ 5.
    11
    (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). To that end, FOIA “requires federal agencies to
    make Government records available to the public, subject to nine exemptions for specific
    categories of material.” Milner v. Dep’t of Navy, 
    562 U.S. 562
    , 564-66 (2011). Ultimately,
    “disclosure, not secrecy, is the dominant objective of the Act.” 
    Rose, 425 U.S. at 361
    . For this
    reason, the “exemptions are explicitly made exclusive, and must be narrowly construed.” 
    Milner, 562 U.S. at 565
    (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
    When presented with a motion for summary judgment in this context, the district court
    must conduct a de novo review of the record, which requires the court to “ascertain whether the
    agency has sustained its burden of demonstrating that the documents requested … are exempt
    from disclosure under the FOIA.” Multi Ag Media LLC v. Dep’t of Agriculture, 
    515 F.3d 1224
    ,
    1227 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). The burden is on the agency to justify its response to
    the plaintiff’s request. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B). “An agency may sustain its burden by means of
    affidavits, but only if they contain reasonable specificity of detail rather than merely conclusory
    statements, and if they are not called into question by contradictory evidence in the record or by
    evidence of agency bad faith.” Multi Ag 
    Media, 515 F.3d at 1227
    (citation omitted). “If an
    agency’s affidavit describes the justifications for withholding the information with specific
    detail, demonstrates that the information withheld logically falls within the claimed exemption,
    and is not contradicted by contrary evidence in the record or by evidence of the agency’s bad
    faith, then summary judgment is warranted on the basis of the affidavit alone.” Am. Civil
    Liberties Union v. Dep’t of Defense, 
    628 F.3d 612
    , 619 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (citations omitted).
    “Uncontradicted, plausible affidavits showing reasonable specificity and a logical relation to the
    exemption are likely to prevail.” Ancient Coin Collectors Guild v. Dep’t of State, 
    641 F.3d 504
    ,
    509 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). Summary judgment is proper when the pleadings, the
    12
    discovery materials on file, and any affidavits or declarations “show[ ] that there is no genuine
    dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R.
    Civ. P. 56(a).
    III. DISCUSSION
    Plaintiff challenges the agency’s withholdings and redactions with respect to each of the
    five categories for which Plaintiff requested a Vaughn index or declaration, which were
    enumerated above. The agency defends its withholdings and redactions on the basis of two
    Vaughn declarations submitted with its motion for summary judgment, the Pedersen Declaration
    and the Shepherd Declaration, as well as based on two supplemental declarations submitted with
    its response in support of the motion for summary judgment, which were executed by the same
    two individuals. The Court reviews each category of documents challenged by Plaintiff, in turn,
    discussing the FOIA exemptions invoked by the agency with respect to each of those categories.
    The Court concludes that Defendant’s redactions and withholdings are justified in full and grants
    summary judgment to the Department of Education on that basis.
    A. Audit Trails & Supporting Documentation
    Pursuant to the Clery Act, universities participating in the Federal financial aid program
    are required to collect and disclose certain information about crime occurring on or near their
    campuses. 20 U.S.C. 20 U.S.C. § 1092(f)(1); see also Pedersen Decl. ¶ 4. In connection with the
    required collection of crime statistics by the Pennsylvania State University (“Penn State” or “the
    University”), Plaintiff requested the preparation of a Vaughn declaration with respect to “Audit
    Trails/Documents Intended to Support the Validity of the University’s Crime Statistics.” Def.’s
    Statement ¶ 4. The agency explained that the “audit trails and documents intended to support the
    validity of the University’s crime statistics (approximately 100 pages) are part of an internal
    13
    quality control process during a program review.” Pedersen Decl. ¶ 5a. The responsive
    documents “include two primary categories of records: 1) spreadsheets and ledgers prepared by
    the University that were intended to support the validity of its campus crime statistics and 2)
    spreadsheets, ledgers, and other similar records created by the Department to support our
    preliminary conclusions about the validity of the University’s campus crime statistics.” 
    Id. Plaintiff does
    not contest this characterization of these records. See Pl.’s Cross-Mot. at 8.
    The agency relies on both Exemption 7(A) and Exemption 7(E) to withhold all of these
    materials in full. Plaintiff challenges the agency’s reliance on each of these exemptions. The
    Court addresses the application of Exemption 7(A), followed by the application of Exemption
    7(E).
    a. Exemption 7(A)
    As noted above, under Exemption 7(A), “records or information compiled for law
    enforcement purposes” are exempt from disclosure under FOIA to the extent the disclosure of
    those materials “could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings.” 5
    U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A). To rely on this exemption, the agency must show, first, the existence of a
    “concrete prospective investigation” or an investigation that is “pending or reasonably
    anticipate.” 
    Boyd, 475 F.3d at 386
    . Next the government must show that disclosure “could
    reasonably be expected perceptibly to interfere” with the enforcement proceeding. 
    North, 881 F.2d at 1097
    (emphasis in original).
    With respect to the application of this exemption, the agency explains as follows:
    These documents must be protected from release because they are part of an on-
    going program review, which, as set forth above, is considered a law enforcement
    activity and appropriately withheld pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(b )(7)(A). Release
    of this information could reasonably be expected to interfere with law
    enforcement proceedings by having a chilling effect on the University, making it
    more difficult for the Department to obtain full and open cooperation throughout
    14
    the pendency of the investigation. Further, prematurely disclosing the
    justifications for our preliminary conclusions regarding the validity of the
    University’s campus crime statistics could reasonably be expected to influence the
    University to prematurely adjust and restructure future disclosures to counter such
    conclusions, instead of providing a more unbiased response.
    Pedersen Decl. ¶ 5a.
    Plaintiff argues that the agency’s Clery Act investigation of Penn State is neither pending
    nor prospective. Plaintiff also argues that the agency has not demonstrated that the investigation
    would be harmed by the release of these responsive materials. For both of these reasons, Plaintiff
    argues that the agency has not justified its withholding under Exemption 7(A). The Court agrees
    with the Government that the agency has shown (1) that the investigation is ongoing and (2) that
    the requested release could reasonably be expected to interfere with the investigation.
    A brief review of the agency’s program review process is necessary here. The parties do
    not dispute the general outline of that process in light of the applicable statutory requirements.
    First, the department undertakes to gather information regarding a program under review.
    Second, the department creates a program review report that is shared with the institution under
    review. Third, the institution has an opportunity to review and respond to that report. See 20
    U.S.C. § 1099c–1(b)(6) (agency must “provide to an institution of higher education an adequate
    opportunity to review and respond to any program review report and relevant materials related to
    the report before any final program review report is issued.”). Finally, after considering the
    institution’s response, the agency issues a “final program review report or audit determination.”
    
    Id. § 1099c–1(b)(7).
    With respect to the program review at issue in this case, there is no dispute that the
    agency has provided its initial program review report to Penn State. There is also no dispute that
    the agency has not yet issued a final program review report or audit determination. The current
    status of the investigation, however, is disputed. Citing only to a press release issued by Penn
    15
    State, Plaintiff states that the University received the agency’s preliminary program review report
    on July 12, 2013. See Pl.’s Cross-Mot. at 6. 5 Based on this assertion and on the Department’s
    Program Review Guide for Institutions 2009, Plaintiff argues that the investigation ceased being
    “pending,” for the purposes of Exemption 7(A), when the agency submitted the preliminary
    report to the institution. Plaintiff reasons that the investigation’s data gathering phase ended at
    that point, and therefore the investigation must be considered to have been completed at that
    time. Plaintiff’s claim is neither supported by fact or logic.
    As shown by the agency’s declarant through a supplemental declaration, Plaintiff’s
    argument has no basis:
    Plaintiff is inaccurate in his characterization of the investigation as “no longer
    pending or prospective.” Through the time of the final issuance of the
    Department’s Final Program Review Determination, the Department can and will
    seek and accept additional information from the institution and other sources. This
    is specifically detailed in the Program Review Guide at page 8-7.
    Supp. Pedersen Decl. ¶ 3. As noted in the Program Review Guide itself, “[i]f the
    information/documentation provided does not fully resolve the findings, the reviewers may
    contact the institution to obtain missing information or clarification.” Pl.’s Cross-Mot, Ex. E
    (Program Review Guide), at 8-7. Plaintiff fixates on the permissive language of the Program
    Review Guide—that “reviewers may contact the institution”—to argue that an investigation is no
    longer pending. See Pl.’s Reply at 3. But this argument does not bear scrutiny. The agency,
    through its declarant, has stated that the investigation is ongoing, indicating that the agency “can
    and will seek and accept” information until the issuance of the final program review
    5
    The Court notes that Plaintiff did not include this statement in his Statement of Material Facts
    which he submitted, as required by Local Civil Rule 7(h). In addition, citing to nothing at all,
    Plaintiff then states that the University has since provided its response to the preliminary report.
    See 
    id. 16 determination.
    Supp. Pedersen Decl. ¶ 3. It is undisputed that the final determination has not yet
    been issued. Accordingly, Plaintiff has provided no basis—other than sher speculation—to
    suggest that the investigation has, in fact, concluded. In any event, the Court’s conclusion that
    the investigation remains pending wholly accords with common sense. The agency issued its
    preliminary report; the institution has had an opportunity to respond; and the agency has yet to
    issue its final determination. Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s argument, the only reasonable
    conclusion is that the investigation is still pending.
    The Court now turns to Plaintiff’s second argument that any information disclosed would
    not interfere with an investigation, to the extent that one remains ongoing. This argument
    overlaps with Plaintiff’s argument that the investigation is not pending. In support of this
    argument, Plaintiff suggests that the agency has “already obtained its evidence,” that the
    agency’s “information gathering ended in 2013,” and that the agency’s “findings have been
    provided to the university.” Pl.’s Cross-Mot. at 9-10. As explained above, these claims are belied
    by the agency’s representation that the investigation remains ongoing, notwithstanding the
    provision of the preliminary report to Penn State, and that the agency continues to accept
    additional information. Moreover, regarding the possibility that disclosures will interfere with the
    ongoing investigation, the agency explains as follows:
    As such the risk of witness intimidation, destruction of evidence and construction
    of alibis still reasonably exist. Further, the release of the records could reasonably
    be expected to have a chilling effect on future witness testimony. In sum, the
    release of the information at issue can still reasonably be expected to harm the
    open investigation, despite the fact that the program review report has been
    issued. The Department has therefore withheld the records in their entirety under
    Exemption 7(A).
    Supp. Pedersen Decl. ¶ 3. Plaintiff has provided no basis to doubt this representation, and the
    Court concludes that the agency has shown that the release of the audit trails/supporting
    documentation could reasonably be expected to interfere with the agency’s ongoing
    17
    investigation. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the agency’s withholding of all of the
    responsive materials in this category is properly justified, in full, on the basis of Exemption
    7(A). 6
    b. Exemption 7(E)
    The Court now turns to the application of Exemption 7(E) to this category of materials,
    which is constituted by the audit trails and supporting documentation for the University’s crime
    statistics. Under this exemption, materials are exempt from FOIA where disclosure “would
    disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would
    disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could
    reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(E). As noted
    above, the responsive documents in this set of materials “include two primary categories of
    records: 1) spreadsheets and ledgers prepared by the University that were intended to support the
    validity of its campus crime statistics and 2) spreadsheets, ledgers, and other similar records
    created by the Department to support our: preliminary conclusions about the validity of the
    University’s campus crime statistics.” Pedersen Decl. ¶ 5a. The agency relies on the first prong
    of Exemption 7(E)—the disclosure of techniques and procedures for law enforcement
    investigations—to justify the withholding of these materials in full. See 
    id. The agency’s
    declarant further explains:
    Specifically, the information contained within these documents would allow the
    University and other recipients to ascertain the types of information used by the
    Department to detect invalid campus crime statistics, thereby making it easier for
    recipients to evade detection.
    6
    Although the Court addressed the parties’ arguments regarding Exemption 7(A) in the context
    of the audit trails/supporting documentation materials, the Court notes that the application of this
    exemption to other sets of records, discussed below, largely follows from the Court’s analysis
    here.
    18
    
    Id. Plaintiff does
    not challenge the application of Exemption 7(E) to these materials; rather, he
    only challenges the application of this exemption to materials redacted by the agency’s Office of
    Inspector General, as discussed below. See Pl.’s Cross-Mot. at 14. In any event, the Court
    concludes that the agency has adequately justified its withholding of the audit trails/supporting
    documentation under Exemption 7(E). The agency has stated, through a sworn declaration, that
    disclosure of the materials that support the crime statistics disseminated by the University, as
    well the materials supporting any audit by the agency of those statistics, would enable
    institutions to submit invalid crime statistics and to “evade detection.” Pedersen Decl. ¶ 5a.
    Plaintiff has provided nothing that controverts this statement, and the Court has no basis to
    second-guess it. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the agency did not err in withholding the
    audit trail/supporting documentation pursuant to Exemption 7(E), in addition to withholding
    these materials in full pursuant to Exemption 7(A).
    B. The Institutional Response to Program Review Report
    As summarized above, the agency’s program review process proceeds generally as
    follows: the agency begins to gather data; the agency issues a preliminary program review report
    to the institution under investigation; the institution has an opportunity to respond; and finally the
    agency issues a final report or determination. Plaintiff has requested Penn State’s institutional
    response to the preliminary program review report issued by the agency. The agency describes
    the responsive materials in this category as follows:
    In the Penn State response to the program review findings (approximately 7,250
    pages), documents include three primary categories of records: 1) the University's
    narrative responses to the Department's findings; 2) police reports, arrest records,
    disciplinary files, and other documents that are intended to substantiate the claims
    made in the University's narrative responses; and 3) additional law enforcement
    reports, student and employee conduct records, and other institutional documents
    including file reviews and document reconstructions that the University was
    required to submit as part of its response to the program review report.
    19
    Pedersen Decl. ¶ 5b. The agency has withheld these responsive materials in full on the basis of
    Exemption 3 and, independently, on the basis of Exemption 7(A). In addition, the agency relies
    on Exemptions 6 and 7(C), which both pertain to the withholding of materials on the basis of
    privacy interests, with respect to certain information contained within this set of materials. The
    Court analyzes, in turn, the application of each of these exemptions.
    a. Exemption 3
    As explained above, under Exemption 3, FOIA does not apply to materials that are
    “specifically exempted from disclosure by statute … if that statute—
    (A)(i) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to
    leave no discretion on the issue; or
    (ii) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of
    matters to be withheld[.]”
    5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3). The agency explains its withholding of the materials in this category under
    this exemption as follows:
    This information must be withheld in full under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3), as its
    release is prohibited by law. The Higher Education Act of 1965, Section 498A (20
    U.S.C. § 1099c-l), as amended, requires that the Department “(8) maintain and
    preserve at all times the confidentiality of any program review report until the
    requirements of paragraphs (6) and (7) are met, and until a final program review
    is issued, other than to the extent required to comply with paragraph (5), except
    that the Secretary shall promptly disclose any and all program review reports to
    the institution of higher education under review”. This prohibition requires the
    Department to keep confidential the institution response until a Final Program
    Review Determination is issued by the department. No Final Program Review
    Determination has been issued in the Penn State matter.
    Pedersen Decl. ¶ 5b. That is, under the applicable governing statute, the agency must preserve
    the confidentiality of “any program review report” until the agency has provided the institution
    an opportunity to respond and until it has issued a final audit or determination. See 20 U.S.C.
    § 1099c–1(b)(6)-(8).
    20
    As crystalized in its Reply and Opposition to Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion, the agency argues
    that disclosure of the institutional response to the preliminary program review report would
    indirectly reveal the content of the preliminary program review report. Therefore, the agency
    argues, the Higher Education Act of 1965 mandates the confidentiality of this material, and it is,
    accordingly, exempt from disclosure under FOIA pursuant to Exemption 3. 7 The Court agrees
    with Defendant’s argument in whole.
    The agency’s declarant elaborates further why the disclosure of the institutional response
    would violate the confidentiality provision of the Higher Education Act:
    As set forth in the Program Review Guide cited by the Plaintiff, the Department
    requires institutions to prepare an institutional response that explicitly addresses
    all issues identified by the program review report, point by point. Prog. Rev.
    Guide, pg. 8-5. Therefore, releasing the institution’s response at this time would
    implicitly release the underlying program review report by inference, which is
    prohibited by the statutory provisions cited previously. Twenty U.S.C. 1099c–
    1(b)(8) requires that the Department must “maintain and preserve at all times the
    confidentiality of any program review report.” As set forth in the Program Review
    Guide cited by the Plaintiff, the Department requires institutions to prepare an
    institutional response that explicitly addresses all issues identified by the program
    review report, point by point. Prog. Rev. Guide, pg. 8-5. Therefore, releasing the
    institution's response at this time would implicitly release the underlying program
    review report by inference, which is prohibited by the statutory provisions cited
    previously. Twenty U.S.C. 1099c–1(b)(8) requires that the Department must
    maintain and preserve at all times the confidentiality of any program review
    report.
    Supp. Pedersen Decl. ¶ 1. The Court concludes that this logic is persuasive.
    Plaintiff only retorts that the agency has not provided any authority for the proposition
    that implicit disclosures of a program review report are barred by the applicable confidentiality
    provision and that, generally, FOIA exemptions to be construed narrowly, in favor of disclosure.
    7
    The agency appears to have abandoned the argument it presented in its Motion for Summary
    Judgment that the institutional response is part of the program review report and therefore
    exempt from disclosure. Because the agency has not pursued this argument, the Court does not
    address it any further.
    21
    The Court notes that Plaintiff never suggests that disclosure of the institutional response would
    not reveal the content of the preliminary review report; rather, Plaintiff simply argues that such a
    revelation is not barred by the statute. While it is true that, as a general matter, FOIA exemptions
    are to be narrowly construed, it is necessary as a matter of logic and common sense for the
    institutional response to be protected by the confidentiality provision barring disclosure of “any
    program review report.” In order for the confidentiality review provision to have any meaning, it
    must be read to bar the disclosure of the content of any program review report, not simply the
    report in its bound format—or the electronic equivalent—as delivered to the institution. For that
    same reason, the disclosure of the institutional response, which would necessarily reveal the
    contents of the preliminary program review report, is also barred by the statute’s confidentiality
    provision. Plaintiff’s semantic arguments regarding the labels of the several documents under
    discussion—comparing the preliminary and final program reports—do not provide an escape
    from this simple conclusion.
    Under Exemption 3, “the [agency] need only show that the statute claimed is one of
    exemption as contemplated by Exemption 3 and that the withheld material falls within the
    statute.” 
    Larson, 565 F.3d at 865
    (citation omitted). The Court concludes that the agency has
    shown that the material withheld is within the scope of the Higher Education Act’s
    confidentiality provision and, therefore, is exempt from disclosure, in full, pursuant to
    Exemption 3.
    b. Exemption 7(A)
    The agency also relies on Exemption 7(A) for its withholding of Penn State’s institutional
    response to the agency’s preliminary review report. As noted above, under Exemption 7(A),
    “records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes” are exempt from disclosure
    22
    under FOIA to the extent those materials “could reasonably be expected to interfere with
    enforcement proceedings.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A). The agency explains its reliance on this
    exemption as follows:
    In addition, as the program reviews are considered enforcement activities
    protected under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7), these documents are also appropriately
    withheld under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A). Release of this information could
    reasonably be expected to interfere with law enforcement proceedings by having a
    chilling effect on the University, making it more difficult for the Department to
    obtain full and open cooperation throughout the pendency of the investigation.
    Pedersen Decl. ¶ 5b. The Court’s discussion above of the parties’ arguments regarding the
    application of this same exemption—with respect to the audit trails and supporting documents
    for the University’s crime statistics—largely resolves their arguments regarding the application
    of Exemption 7(A) to Penn State’s institutional response. First, above, the Court rejected
    Plaintiff’s primary argument that the agency’s Clery Act review is no longer pending. That
    conclusion is applicable here as well. Second, the Court rejected Plaintiff’s argument that the
    disclosure of the audit trails/supporting documentation would not harm the ongoing
    investigation. While the institutional response to the preliminary program review report is
    undoubtedly distinct from the materials addressed above, the Court arrives at the same
    conclusion as above: that the agency has shown that the disclosure of the materials could be
    reasonably expected to interfere with the ongoing investigation. As explained above, the Court
    has accepted the agency’s representation that it continues to receive information from the
    institution until the issuance of the final determination or report. Therefore, “the risk of witness
    intimidation, destruction of evidence and construction of alibis still reasonably exist.” Supp.
    Pedersen Decl. ¶ 3. As a result, “the release of the records could reasonably be expected to have
    a chilling effect on future witness testimony.” 
    Id. Plaintiff has
    provided nothing to undermine
    23
    this conclusion. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the agency has justified withholding the
    institutional response, in full, under Exemption 7(A).
    c. Exemptions 6 and 7(C)
    In addition to withholding Penn State’s institutional response in full under Exemption 3
    and under Exemption 7(A), the agency justifies the withholding of certain information within this
    set of materials on the basis of Exemption 6 and Exemption 7(C). As explained above, under
    Exemption 6, FOIA is inapplicable to “personnel and medical files and similar files the
    disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”
    5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3)(6). Under Exemption 7(C), materials compiled for law enforcement
    purposes are exempt from disclosure under FOIA where such disclosure “could reasonably be
    expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C).
    Applying each of these exemptions requires a balancing analysis, which weighs the privacy
    interest against the public interests in favor of disclosure that are at stake. The agency explains
    its withholding under these provisions as follows:
    The Penn State response also contains a significant amount of personally
    identifiable information, including student names, social security numbers, crime
    reports, security incident reports, and victim allegation statements, that must be
    protected pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6) and (7)(C). The information itself is
    highly personal in nature and would be extremely damaging and/or embarrassing
    if disclosed, and would risk exposing the students to harassment and other
    unwanted public attention. Further, being identified as an individual with
    involvement in such a highly publicized investigation carries with it a negative
    connotation, and could subject the individual(s) to harassment, embarrassment
    and/or undue public attention. In contrast, the release of this identifying
    information would not significantly increase the public’s understanding of the
    Department's performance of its mission. Because there is no public interest to
    outweigh the significant privacy interest at stake, this identifying information was
    withheld.
    Pedersen Decl. ¶ 5b. In response, Plaintiff concedes that the agency may withhold “student
    names, social security numbers, and other personally identifying information.” Pl.’s Cross-Mot.
    24
    at 12. However, Plaintiff argues that “crime reports, security incident reports and victim
    allegation statements” should have been produced with the identifying information redacted. 
    Id. In response,
    the agency’s declarant further explains why such redactions would not be possible:
    The Department notes that the records at issue, including crime reports, security
    incident reports, and victim allegation statements, by their nature contain privacy-
    related information apart from student names and social security numbers that
    must be protected pursuant to Exemptions 6 and 7(C). Further, the Department
    notes that, in some instances, redacting all exempt material under Exemptions 6,
    7(C) and 7(D) may rob the records of any probative value.
    Supp. Pedersen Decl. ¶ 2. Plaintiff has not provided anything that rebuts this explanation. Indeed,
    Plaintiff’s argument regarding these exemptions is no more than conclusory. Moreover, the
    Department’s contention that much of the information in the crime reports, security incident
    reports, and victim allegation statements would be privacy-related reflects common sense.
    Indeed, the information at issue, regarding particularly crime reports and statements by victims,
    can be of the most private nature. Such information is often underreported, and it is plausible that
    further disclosure of such private information would only exacerbate the challenges of such
    underreporting. See, e.g., U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Victimizations Not Reported to the Police, 2006–
    2010 (2012), available at http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vnrp0610.pdf (last visited Apr. 20,
    2016), at 1 (52% of all violent victimizations unreported). The balancing tests the Court must
    apply with respect to these exemptions indicate that the agency’s withholding of this information
    was proper. See 
    Beck, 997 F.2d at 1493
    ; 
    Sussman, 494 F.3d at 1115
    . Accordingly, in light of the
    agency’s showing and in light of Plaintiff’s failure to rebut that showing, as well as the
    limitations of his cursory argument, the Court concludes that the agency’s withholding of
    information within the institutional response, as identified by the agency, under Exemptions 6
    and 7(C) is justified.
    25
    C. Discussion Records and Interview Notes in Connection with Freeh Group
    Plaintiff next requested a Vaughn index or declaration as to “Records of
    Discussion/Interview Notes to the extent they reflect communication or interaction with
    employees of the Freeh Group.” The agency responded that it has no responsive records to this
    request. Pedersen Decl. ¶ 6. Plaintiff does not challenge this statement or otherwise challenge the
    adequacy of the search with respect to these documents. 8 No further discussion of these materials
    is necessary. The Court concludes that the agency’s actions with respect to these materials
    comply with the requirements of FOIA.
    D. Records Exchanged Between the Agency and the Freeh Group
    Next, the Court turns to Plaintiff’s request regarding records exchanged between the
    agency’s Office of Student Aid and the Freeh Group. The Court notes that, in Plaintiff’s request
    for a Vaughn declaration regarding this category of materials, Plaintiff indicated that “during our
    conference call, it was stated that a limited number of written correspondence between the Freeh
    Group and FSA exist, perhaps only one email.” Def.’s Statement, Ex. A. With respect to this
    category of materials, the agency produced 85 pages of emails, of which 23 pages included
    redactions. Of these 23 pages, 2 pages were redacted pursuant to Exemptions 6, 7(A), 7(C), and
    7(D); 21 pages were redacted pursuant to Exemption 7(A) alone.
    The Court begins with the two pages redacted pursuant to the several exemptions
    mentioned here. The agency’s declarant explains that “[t]he information redacted contains the
    name, contact information and other identifying information for individual(s) who may be
    witnesses and/or whistle blowers related to FSA’s program review of the University.” Pedersen
    8
    The Court notes, however, that the agency has explained the limited nature of its interaction
    with a law firm linked to the Freeh Group, notwithstanding Plaintiff’s theories to the contrary.
    See Supp. Pedersen Decl. ¶ 5.
    26
    Decl. ¶ 7a. The agency’s declarant further explains the redaction of these two pages under
    Exemptions 6, 7(A), 7(C), and 7(D):
    Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6) and (7)(C), being identified as an individual with
    involvement in such a highly publicized investigation carries with it a negative
    connotation, and could subject the individual(s) to harassment, embarrassment
    and/or undue public attention. In contrast, the release of this identifying
    information would not significantly increase the public’s understanding of the
    Department’s performance of its mission. Because there is no public interest to
    outweigh the significant privacy interest at stake, this identifying information was
    withheld.
    Further, as set forth above, the Clery Act investigation qualifies as an ongoing law
    enforcement investigation pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552[b](7)(A). Release of this
    identifying information may subject the individual(s) to threats or retaliation such
    that their willingness to cooperate with the Department would be significantly
    curtailed. In fact, the mere potential for such threats or retaliation would likely
    have a chilling effect on the individual(s) cooperation.
    Further, the information must be withheld under 5 U.S.C. § 552[b](7)(D), as the
    individual(s) were expressly promised confidentiality in exchange for providing
    information regarding the Clery investigation. Release of the name(s) could
    expose the individual(s) to retaliation, harassment and unwanted public attention,
    and would discourage other individuals from providing similar information to the
    Department in the future. Protecting the anonymity of the individual(s) is essential
    to the Department’s effective law enforcement.
    
    Id. With respect
    to the 21 pages redacted pursuant to Exemption 7(A) alone, the agency’s
    declarant justified the redactions as follows:
    Twenty-one pages – consisting entirely of duplicate copies of a single Email –
    contain redactions pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552[b](7)(A). The information redacted
    refers to information sources and compilation currently in use in this ongoing
    program review. Release of this information could reasonably be expected to
    adversely impact an ongoing law enforcement investigation by allowing the
    University and other recipients to evade detection, both in the current open
    investigation and in future law enforcement activities.
    Pedersen Decl. ¶ 7b.
    With respect to Exemption 7(A), which was invoked with respect to all 23 redacted
    pages, the Court already concluded above that an investigation remains pending in this case.
    Plaintiff has provided no basis to second-guess the agency’s statement that disclosing the
    27
    redacted information “could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings.”
    5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A). Accordingly, the Court concludes that the agency has made the
    requisite showing in order to rely on Exemption 7(A) for its redactions.
    With respect to Exemption 7(C), as noted above, Plaintiff has conceded that the redaction
    of personal identifying information is generally proper. And Plaintiff has not provided any basis
    to conclude that the redaction of the personal identifying information in these particular e-mails
    is not proper. Because the agency only relied on Exemption 7(C), with respect to these materials,
    to redact personal identifying information, the Court need not address Exemption 7(C) any
    further. The Court concludes that the agency has adequately justified reliance on this exemption.
    Similarly, Plaintiff has made a related concession with respect to Exemption 6. See Pl.’s Cross-
    Mot. at 7. Given the limited application of Exemption 6 to personal identifying information
    within this set of e-mails, the Court concludes that the application of this exemption was proper
    as well.
    Finally, with respect to Exemption 7(D), the Court concludes the agency’s redaction of
    names was proper in light of the express promise of confidentiality provided to the persons
    whose information was redacted. See Hodge v. F.B.I., 
    703 F.3d 575
    , 581 (D.C. Cir. 2013)
    (express promise of confidentiality presented in sworn declaration sufficient to justify reliance on
    Exemption 7(D)).
    Accordingly, the Court concludes that the agency’s redactions of the e-mails produced
    within this category of materials are justified by the agency’s reliance on the several exemptions
    discussed here.
    28
    E. Inspector General’s Records
    Lastly, the Court turns to Plaintiff’s request for a Vaughn index or declaration with
    respect to “Responsive Records in the Possession of the Inspector General.” Shelley Shepherd,
    Assistant Counsel to the Inspector General, who submitted a declaration in support of the
    agency’s response regarding the materials in the possession of the Office of the Inspector
    General, explains that “[t[he withheld information constitutes 35 pages of emails between the
    OIG, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the law firm Pepper Hamilton, LLP during the
    period March 2012 to July 2012.” Shepherd Decl. ¶ 6. Shepherd also explains that “[t]he
    withheld records are unrelated to the Department’s review of Pennsylvania State University’s
    compliance with the Clery Act.” 9 
    Id. ¶ 9.
    The agency relied on FOIA Exemption 7(A) to
    withhold the materials in full; the agency also relied on FOIA Exemptions 7(C) and 7(E) to
    withhold certain subsets of the materials. The Court addresses, in turn, each of these exemptions.
    With respect to Exemption 7(A), Defendant is withholding this entire set of records because
    of an ongoing criminal investigation by the Office of Inspector General. The Shepherd Declaration
    further explains:
    These email records have been withheld in full under exemption (b)(7)(A) of the
    FOIA which protects records or information compiled for law enforcement
    purposes the release of which could reasonably be expected to interfere with law
    enforcement proceedings. These emails discuss record requests and subpoena
    requests related to an ongoing OIG criminal investigation. As such, the production
    of this information would reveal targets of the investigation who are not publicly
    known, the nature of matters currently under investigation, and investigatory
    techniques which could reasonably be expected to interfere with law enforcement
    proceedings. Therefore, this information is protected in its entirety pursuant to the
    exemption. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A).
    9
    The records are responsive to Plaintiff’s FOIA request because that request included a request
    for all e-mails, letters, and documents that were exchanged between employees of Pepper
    Hamilton and the agency, within a limited period of time. See Def.’s Statement ¶ 1b.
    29
    Shepherd Decl. ¶ 6. While Plaintiff claims that the investigation of Penn State has concluded, the
    agency confirms that the criminal investigation on which it relies here is not related to Penn
    State. 10 See Supp. Shepherd Decl. ¶ 1. Therefore, Plaintiff’s argument that there would be no
    harm from disclosure because Penn State is aware of the investigation is inapposite; the
    investigation in question is simply not connected to Penn State.
    In addition, Plaintiff argues that could be no harm from disclosure because the targets of
    the investigation must already be aware of it. The agency acknowledges that “the targets are
    aware of the investigation,” but emphasizes that “the targets are not publicly known.” 
    Id. ¶ 2.
    Given that the targets are not known publicly, the agency further explains the harm that would
    result from disclosure of the withheld materials:
    In addition to the harms cited in my earlier declaration, release of these records
    would also identify witnesses who could be subject to harassment, intimidation.
    Release would reveal the direction and scope of the investigation; it could lead to
    the premature release of evidence at a time when this matter will be before a
    grand jury.
    
    Id. Plaintiff has
    provided nothing to rebut the harms forecasted by the agency. Therefore, the
    Court concludes that the agency has shown that disclosure of these materials “could reasonably
    be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A). Accordingly,
    the agency’s withholding of these materials, in full, is justified by Exemption 7(A).
    Turning briefly to the other exemptions on which the agency relied for its withholding of
    portions of this set of materials, the Court begins with Exemption 7(C). The agency relies on this
    exemption, which covers private information collected for law enforcement purposes, to
    withhold identifying information of “individuals of investigatory interest to [the Office of
    10
    In any event, the Court concluded, above, that the agency’s investigation of Penn State
    remains pending for all purposes relating to Exemption 7(A).
    30
    Inspector General], including targets and third-party individuals.” Shepherd Decl. ¶ 7. Plaintiff
    never challenges the withholding of this information pursuant to Exemption 7(C), and it appears
    that Plaintiff may have conceded that such withholding is appropriate. See Pl.’s Opp’n at 12. 11
    Regardless, it is apparent that the balancing test applicable under Exemption 7(C) requires the
    redaction of such personal identifying information in these circumstances. See 
    Sussman, 494 F.3d at 1115
    .
    Lastly, the agency relies on Exemption 7(E) for the withholding of these e-mails to the
    extent that they contain “search terms used by case agents in the course of the investigation” by
    the Office of the Inspector General. Shepherd Decl. ¶ 8. Through the Shepherd Declaration, the
    agency explains that “[d]isclosure of these terms could risk circumvention of the law in this
    ongoing investigation.” 
    Id. Plaintiff responds
    that disclosing these materials would only disclose
    the unsurprising fact that the agency used search terms, in the first instance, in its investigation.
    But the Court need not don its Sherlock Holmes hat to agree with the Government that this
    argument is “patently wrong.” Def.’s Reply at 7. In fact, the disclosure of this information would
    indicate which search terms the agency used to uncover wrongdoing in this particular case.
    11
    Plaintiff never discusses the application of 7(C) to the set of withheld e-mails that are in the
    possession of the Office of the Inspector General. However, apparently in the context of other
    documents pertaining to Penn State, Plaintiff explicitly concedes that the redaction of similar
    identifying information is generally appropriate:
    Plaintiff concedes that Exemption 7(C) generally allows the government to
    withhold student names, social security numbers and other personally identifying
    information. However, Exemptions 7(C) and 7(D) do not permit the wholesale
    withholding of crime reports, security incident reports and victim allegation
    statements, as Defendant has done in this instance. Defendant has not explained
    why it cannot provide responsive records with identifying information redacted.
    Pl.’s Cross-Mot. at 12.
    31
    Disclosing those terms would, therefore, facilitate the avoidance of the detection of wrongdoing
    by persons committing such wrongdoing, who could eliminate the terms found in any agency
    disclosure from their correspondence. Defendant’s declarant further explains how disclosing this
    information would risk future circumvention of the law:
    Release of the emails and other communications related to this program review
    would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations;
    specifically, these records contain information about the specific law enforcement
    tools used to acquire evidence. The Department notes that there are multiple
    entities who regularly seek out information with regard to the Department's
    methodologies in an effort to advise institutions, not on better methods for
    compliance, but rather to identify the most minimum requirements for
    compliance. It is not in the Department nor the public’s interests to have
    institutions of higher education comply with only the most minimum of
    requirements for campus security. Therefore, these records must be withheld
    pursuant to Exemption 7(E).
    Supp. Shepherd Decl. ¶ 4. This explanation by the agency remains unrebutted by Plaintiff, and
    ultimately reflects a common-sense conclusion that revealing this information “could risk
    circumvention of the law.”
    Finally, Plaintiff argues that the agency provided the search terms to Fried, Spork and
    Sullivan, LLP, a law firm working for the supposed target of the investigation. As the agency
    points out, Plaintiff provides no factual basis for this claim, and the agency has explained in
    detail why the claim is incorrect. See Supp. Pedersen Decl. ¶ 5. Accordingly, the Court concludes
    that the agency has justified the withholding of this subset of the Inspector General e-mails on
    the basis of Exemption 7(E)
    For all of these reasons, the Court concludes that the agency properly applied each of the
    FOIA exemptions on which it relies with respect to the materials in the possession of the Office
    of the Inspector General—Exemptions 7(A), 7(C), and 7(E)—and that the agency properly
    withheld these materials in full.
    *      *       *
    32
    In sum, the Court concludes that all of the agency’s withholdings and redactions are
    supported by the FOIA exemptions on which the agency relies, as discussed above. Furthermore,
    Plaintiff has not shown that the agency has failed to comply with its segregability obligations,
    and the Court concludes that the agency has, in fact, complied with those obligations.
    Accordingly, because there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact, the Court grants
    summary judgment to the agency in full.
    IV. CONCLUSION
    For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant U.S. Department of
    Education’s [19] Motion for Summary Judgment and DENIES Plaintiff Ryan Bagwell’s [21]
    Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court GRANTS summary judgment to Defendant in
    full, and this case is dismissed in its entirety.
    An appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
    Dated: April 26, 2016
    /s/
    COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY
    United States District Judge
    33
    

Document Info

Docket Number: Civil Action No. 2015-0334

Judges: Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly

Filed Date: 4/26/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 4/26/2016

Authorities (21)

Milner v. Department of the Navy , 131 S. Ct. 1259 ( 2011 )

United States Department of Justice v. Landano , 113 S. Ct. 2014 ( 1993 )

Critical Mass Energy Project v. Nuclear Regulatory ... , 975 F.2d 871 ( 1992 )

Campbell v. United States Department of Justice , 164 F.3d 20 ( 1998 )

Lepelletier v. Federal Deposit Insurance , 164 F.3d 37 ( 1999 )

United States Department of State v. Washington Post Co. , 102 S. Ct. 1957 ( 1982 )

Boyd v. Criminal Division of the United States Department ... , 475 F.3d 381 ( 2007 )

Robert Charles Beck v. Department of Justice , 997 F.2d 1489 ( 1993 )

Maydak v. United States Department of Justice , 218 F.3d 760 ( 2000 )

Mayer Brown LLP v. Internal Revenue Service , 562 F.3d 1190 ( 2009 )

Sussman v. United States Marshals Service , 494 F.3d 1106 ( 2007 )

Multi Ag Media LLC v. Department of Agriculture , 515 F.3d 1224 ( 2008 )

United States Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee ... , 109 S. Ct. 1468 ( 1989 )

United States Department of Defense v. Federal Labor ... , 114 S. Ct. 1006 ( 1994 )

National Association of Retired Federal Employees v. ... , 879 F.2d 873 ( 1989 )

Ancient Coin Collectors Guild v. United States Department ... , 641 F.3d 504 ( 2011 )

John Davis v. United States Department of Justice , 968 F.2d 1276 ( 1992 )

Blackwell v. Federal Bureau of Investigation , 646 F.3d 37 ( 2011 )

American Civil Liberties Union v. United States Department ... , 628 F.3d 612 ( 2011 )

Larson v. Department of State , 565 F.3d 857 ( 2009 )

View All Authorities »