Case Detail
| Case Title | AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF WOMEN, INC. v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | District of Columbia | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Washington, DC | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 1:2014cv02136 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2014-12-17 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2016-03-08 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Judge Royce C. Lamberth | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF WOMEN, INC. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Description | The American Association of Women submitted a FOIA request to the Department of Justice for records concerning the agency's decision not to inform Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca of the existence of a federal investigation of allegations of prisoner abuse or brutality. The FBI denied the Association's request under Exemption 7(A) (ongoing investigation or proceeding). The Association appealed to OIP, but after hearing nothing further, the Association filed suit. Complaint issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Exemption 7(A), Adequacy - Search, Litigation - Vaughn index, Litigation - Attorney's fees | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Complaint attachment 3 Complaint attachment 4 Opinion/Order [26] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Royce Lamberth has ruled that the FBI properly withheld records concerning an investigation of the Los Angeles county jail the existence of which was revealed in a Los Angeles Times article under Exemption 7(A) (interference with ongoing investigation or proceeding) and that the American Association of Women has failed to show that the documents entered the public domain as a result of the Times article. The Association requested records about the investigation after the Times article appeared. The FBI withheld them all under Exemption 7(A). The Association then appealed to OIP, which upheld the agency's decision, finding that portions of the records were also exempt under Exemption 3 (other statutes), Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy), Exemption 7(C) (invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records), Exemption 7(D) (confidential sources), and Exemption 7(E) (investigative methods and techniques). Lamberth found the records included evidentiary and investigative materials, communications coordinating the activities of various law enforcement agencies, and communications allowing the FBI to monitor the progress of the investigation. He found that all three categories fell within the parameters of Exemption 7(A) and added that he was satisfied with the agency's explanation of why there were no segregable records. Lamberth agreed with the agency that all its other exemptions were appropriate as well. The Association's primary argument was that the Los Angeles Times article served as a public acknowledgment of the existence of the records and, thus, the exemption claims were waived. Lamberth was unconvinced. He noted that "the news article references, as plaintiff underscores, two general types of sources. Defendant's record search produced three specific records. This discrepancy makes it difficult to find a connection between the information allegedly reviewed by the L.A. Times and the records identified in defendant's records search." Assessing the Association's argument, Lamberth pointed out that "plaintiff supports its argument mostly through negative inference and conjecture of a nature unsatisfactory to the Court to allow a finding in plaintiff's favor. Specifically, plaintiff states first that since the records 'relate to the decision not to inform the L.A. County Sheriff about the existence of a federal investigation, the records could not have been procured from the L.A. County Sheriff's office.' While there may be a certain comfortable logic to this contention, such logic is not proof that the records did not come from the L.A. County Sheriff's office. Nor does it prove that such were the subject of an officially acknowledged documented disclosure." Citing National Security Counselors v. CIA, 960 F. Supp. 2d 101 (D.D.C. 2013), the Association argued the burden of proof had shifted to the agency to show there had not been a public disclosure. Lamberth rejected the claim, noting that "the Court sees nothing in the record sufficient to carry plaintiff's burden that the information contained in its request is identical to that described in the article. The burden therefore remains with plaintiff."
Issues: Exemption 7(A) - Interference with ongoing investigation, Public domain | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
