Case Detail
| Case Title | JETT v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | District of Columbia | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Washington, DC | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 1:2014cv00276 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2014-02-21 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2017-05-10 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Judge Amit P. Mehta | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | JAMES B. JETT | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Description | James Jett submitted a FOIA request to the FBI for records concerning the agency's investigation of alleged bribery activities associated with a 2012 congressional campaign in Northeast Florida. The FBI indicated it had located 66 pages, but disclosed only 35 redacted pages. The agency claimed that Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy), Exemption 7(C) (invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records), and Exemption 7(E) (investigative methods and techniques) applied to the withheld records. Jett appealed to the Office of Information Policy, but after hearing nothing further, Jett filed suit. Complaint issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation - Attorney's fees | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Opinion/Order [20] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Amit Mehta has ruled that the FBI did not conduct an adequate search for records concerning its investigation of allegations that James Jett, a Florida candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives, was approached by intermediaries of his incumbent opponent and offered future employment and reimbursement of campaign expenditures if he agreed to drop out of the race. Jett reported these offers to the FBI, whose Jacksonville field office began an investigation. Jacksonville field office agents asked Jett to record any subsequent phone calls with intermediaries and Jett agreed to do. Based on those recordings, the field office requested permission from the Public Corruption Unit to have Jett wear a wire during a meeting with his opponent, the intermediaries, and a high-ranking member of the House. The Public Corruption Unit, however, turned down the field office's request, advising Jett that before he would be authorized to wear a wire he would have to record another conversation with the intermediaries and unequivocally declare that he was unwilling to drop out of the race. Jett did not record another call. Instead, he met with his opponent and the intermediaries, although the high-ranking member of the House was not present, and told them he had been approached by the FBI about whether he had received any offer to drop out of the race. He also told his opponent that he would not drop out of the race. His opponent denied making such an offer and asked Jett if he was wearing a wire. The meeting ended abruptly and weeks later Jett publicly accused his opponent of trying to bribe him. Based on Jett's actions, the FBI closed its investigation. Jett made a FOIA request to the FBI for records about the investigation, including copies of any telephone tape recordings that were made. The FBI told Jett that it would search its Central Records System for records linked to his name, but would not search for records on identified third parties without a Privacy Act waiver. Jett argued that a Privacy Act waiver was unnecessary because of the public interest in disclosure. After searching under Jett's name, the agency located an FBI Jacksonville main file and two sub-files containing 66 pages. The agency disclosed one page in full, 59 pages with redactions, three pages were withheld entirely, and three pages were withheld as being duplicative. The agency claimed Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy), Exemption 7(C) (invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement record), and Exemption 7(E) (investigative methods and techniques) as the basis for its redactions. Jett claimed the agency's search was inadequate because it failed to search for records of third parties and because it did not search its electronic surveillance indices. Mehta agreed with Jett on both counts. He pointed out that "Jett's failure to produce a Privacy Act waiver did not, in this case, justify the FBI's refusal to search for documents by running the names of other pertinent players through the CRS database. Whether such searches would return producible documents is a separate question." He explained that "in deciding whether the FBI's categorical refusal to run names of other than Jett's in CRS was warranted, the question is not whether Jett obtained third-party waivers, but rather whether all responsive documents resulting from such searches would be exempt from disclosure under FOIA." Mehta cited Reporters Committee and CREW v. Dept of Justice, 746 F.3d 1082 (D.C. Cir. 2014) to support his decision. He observed that Reporters Committee indicated the privacy balance was weakest when disclosure of records would shed light on government activities. As to CREW, in which the D.C. Circuit ruled that the FBI could not invoke a Glomar response neither confirming nor denying the existence of records concerning its corruption investigation of former House Majority Leader Tom Delay because of the high level of public interest in the investigation, Mehta noted that "the FBI here could not categorically decline to run searches using the names of those people identified by Jett as being involved in the public corruption investigation. . .[T]he public surely has an interest here in knowing why the FBI and DOJ conducted a public investigation involving an elected federal official and�"especially in light of Jett's public accusation that the investigation ended prematurely to protect the high-ranking House Member�"why they ultimately decided not to pursue it further. . .Simply put, like CREW. . .this is not a case in which the public-private balance 'characteristically tips in one direction' and thus would warrant a refusal to search based on the failure to obtain a Privacy Act waiver." Mehta agreed with Jett that the agency should have searched its electronic surveillance indices. He pointed out that "here, the need to search the ELSUR system was plain on the face of Jett's FOIA request" because Jett had asked for tape recordings of phone calls. Mehta observed that "when his request sought information that plainly was not contained within CRS, i.e., recorded telephone conversations, the FBI could not put its head in the sand and ignore an obvious source for the requested material." Mehta conducted an in camera review of the records. He found that Jett's reliance on CREW as evidence that the FBI had withheld too many records under Exemption 7(C) was misplaced. He explained that in CREW the D.C. Circuit found the FBI could not categorically refuse to search for and process responsive records on the basis of Exemption 7(C). He observed that "the FBI in this case did not categorically withhold all responsive records; rather, it conducted a line-by-line review of the records and invoked Exemption 7(C). . .only to redact names and other identifying information of third parties. That approach is consistent with CREW [and other D.C. Circuit case law]." Turning to Exemption 7(E), Mehta noted that the agency's affidavit "fails to meet even the relatively low bar required to justify withholding under Exemption 7(E)." But after reviewing the records in camera, Mehta agreed with the agency that the information was protected. Redacting more than 20 lines of text in his opinion to protect the substance of the techniques, Mehta observed that "the redactions here do not concern the methods or techniques of surreptitious recording; rather, they relate to how the FBI directed the investigation and why it instructed Jett not to wear a wire. Because the disclosure of that information poses a risk to future law enforcement activities, it was properly withheld under Exemption 7(E)."
Opinion/Order [26]Issues: Exemption 7(C) - Invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records, Adequacy - Search, Litigation - In camera review, Exemption 7(E) - Investigative methods or techniques FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Amit Mehta has declined to reconsider his September 2015 ruling requiring the FBI to search for records concerning a member of the U.S. House of Representatives and intermediaries who allegedly tried to bribe House candidate James Jett from running against the incumbent member. Based on Jett's allegations that he had been approached to accept a bribe, the FBI asked Jett to record further phone conversations, which he did. The agency also asked Jett to wear a wire to record his meeting with the intermediaries. Instead, Jett accused his opponent of trying to bribe him, a charge the opponent denied. Jett then issued a press release accusing the FBI of trying to coerce him into wearing a wire, which led the FBI to close the investigation. Jett then requested records of the investigation. While the agency searched for records under Jett's name, it refused to search for records of the other parties involved, claiming that would violate their privacy. Under these unique circumstances, Mehta ruled that the FBI was required to search using the names of the other parties involved, although he stressed that any records found as a result of such a search might well still be exempt under Exemption 7(C) (invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records). Mehta had based his previous ruling on CREW v. Dept of Justice. 746 F.3d 1082 (D.C. Cir. 2014), in which the D.C. Circuit ruled that the FBI could not rely on a Glomar response neither confirming nor denying the existence of records in response to CREW's request for the agency's reasons for not prosecuting former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) even though DeLay had publicly acknowledged the existence of the investigation. Here, by contrast, the FBI insisted that CREW did not apply. But Mehta explained that "the court clarifies further here why it did not find the factual distinctions between this case and CREW to be material. The Court of Appeals in CREW did not say, as the FBI suggests, that the involvement of a high-ranking government official is the critical element that tips the private-public balance against allowing an agency to categorically withhold information. Indeed, the history books, newspapers, and�"in today's world�"blogs are replete with stories and commentary about investigations and prosecutions of public officials, including those who may be characterized as 'obscure.' " He added that "public accountability surely is not restricted to high-ranking elected officials." The FBI also argued that DeLay's privacy interest was diminished because he had publicly acknowledged the existence of the investigation. But Mehta noted that "once an investigation of a sitting Congressman accused of misusing his office emerges into the public realm, the citizens, particularly his constituents, acquire a substantial interest in learning how federal law enforcement handled his investigation, especially if no prosecution results." The FBI also argued that Blackwell v. FBI, 646 F.3d 37 (D.C. Cir. 2012), in which the D.C. Circuit found the agency did not have to search for records pertaining to third parties when any such records would be exempt, supported its position. Mehta pointed out that Jett had only asked for records about third parties to the extent that they were involved in his investigation. He noted that "here, it is not hard to imagine that a search using the Opponent's and the Intermediaries' names could produce additional responsive, non-duplicative records about the investigation, similar to the records the FBI already disclosed. Such records, unlike Blackwell, would not be protected from disclosure in their entirety under Exemption 7(C)." Mehta emphasized the limits of his decision, noting that "the court held only that the FBI's categorical refusal to search for the names provided by Plaintiff was improper. The applicability of FOIA exemptions to any additional responsive information is a question left for another day,"
Opinion/Order [41]Issues: Determination - Glomar response FOIA Project Annotation: In a decision that may have serious repercussions as to how the FBI conducts searches of its Electronic Surveillance Indices database, Judge Amit Mehta has granted James Jett limited discovery to ascertain whether the agency can search its Central Records System and its ELSUR databases simultaneously or whether it has to search each database separately. The case involves a FOIA request by James Jett, an unsuccessful candidate from Florida for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. While he was a candidate Jett informed the FBI that he had been offered a bribe by two intermediaries from one of the opposing candidates to drop out of the race. Jett agreed to wear a wire during a meeting with the opposing candidate, but inexplicably told his opponent of the investigation instead, at which time the FBI closed the investigation. Jett then filed a FOIA request for records concerning the investigation. In a previous opinion, Mehta found the FBI had not shown that it conducted an adequate search, based in part on its failure to search the ELSUR database. Mehta ordered the agency to conduct another search, using more key words. That search yielded no further records, but the agency disclosed another 19 records, claiming they had been inadvertently overlooked originally. Jett complained that the FBI had claimed in earlier affidavits in his case, as well as in other FOIA litigation in the D.C. Circuit district courts, that ELSUR records could only be located through a separate search of that database. But the FBI now told Jett that it could search both the CRS and the ELSUR databases simultaneously and no longer needed to conduct separate searches. Mehta indicated that the agency's new position was puzzling, leaving more questions unanswered. He pointed out that "these unanswered questions and the inconsistencies in the FBI's statements, not only within this case but also across different cases over the course of years, give rise to the kind of serious misgivings that may evidence agency bad faith and warrant discovery to resolve. Jett, the court, and the public have a profound interest in achieving clarity regarding the searchability of the ELSUR indices and resolving the conflicting representations that the FBI has made about the characteristics of that database. Consequently, the court concludes the FBI has not satisfied its burden to prove it performed an adequate search within the meaning of FOIA as to responsive records that might be found within the ELSUR indices." Mehta found that the agency had properly redacted information from the records disclosed to Jett under Exemption 7(C) (invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records) and Exemption 7(E) (investigative methods and techniques). The FBI withheld a questionnaire under Exemption 7(E). Mehta agreed that withholding the questionnaire was appropriate under the circumstances. He observed that the questionnaire "though perhaps publicly known in a generic sense, becomes sensitive when filled out with content related to a specific investigation, as is the case here."
Issues: Litigation - Discovery | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
