Case Detail
| Case Title | McAtee v. United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Secret Service | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | District of Montana | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Missoula | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 9:2015cv00084 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2015-07-08 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2016-08-10 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Judge Donald W. Molloy | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | Deanna McAtee | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Description | Deanna McAtee submitted a FOIA request to the U.S. Secret Service for records concerning the agency's investigation of her for foreclosing on a property for which Whitefish Credit Union had lent money for improvements. The charges against McAtee were dropped after an official at Whitefish testified that McAtee was acting on the credit union's instructions. The agency made a partial disclosure of some records with redactions. Believing those records represented only a fraction of the responsive records, McAtee filed suit. Complaint issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation - Attorney's fees | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Secret Service | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Opinion/Order [34] FOIA Project Annotation: A federal court in Montana has ruled that the Secret Service properly withheld records from Deanna McAtee concerning her indictment for wire fraud related to real estate transactions involving Whitefish Credit Union. The charges against McAtee were dropped several months later. McAtee later filed a FOIA request with the Secret Service, part of which was referred to the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys by the agency. The Secret Service finished its response about a year later, providing 450 pages in full, 163 pages with redactions, and withholding 41 pages in full. McAtee appealed the agency's decision, but filed suit before the appeal was resolved. Two months later, the agency upheld its denial on appeal. EOUSA, however, did not respond to the referral until seven months later, releasing three pages in full and withholding 29 pages in full. McAtee argued the Secret Service's search was inadequate because it had taken so long. The court agreed with the agency that her timeliness claim was moot once she received a response. The court noted that "because McAtee does not dispute that she has received a final response to her request and she does not allege a pattern or practice of untimely responses, her timeliness claim is moot." The court rejected McAtee's contention that the referral to EOUSA was also improper. The court pointed out that "McAtee has now received a complete, albeit belated, response from the Executive Office. Aside from the delay that the referral caused�"now a moot issue�"the Secret Service's referral procedure is in line with the recommended procedures for processing documents originating with other agencies." But the court was concerned that McAtee had not yet had an opportunity to challenge the withholdings made by EOUSA, noting that "at this time, the Court is without sufficient information to analyze the applicability of the claimed exemptions and make a segregability determination as to the 29 pages. Additionally, the Court cannot review the response until after McAtee has exhausted the appeals process as to the Executive Office's response. Because the propriety of the 29 withheld pages is not properly before the Court on the current motions, the parties shall file a joint stipulation addressing the status of and proposed resolution for those pages." The Secret Service has withheld some records under Exemption 3 (other statutes), citing Rule 6(e) on grand jury secrecy. The court found the agency's explanations conclusory at this point, explaining that "although some of the requested records may fall under Exemption 3, the Secret Service has not yet supplied sufficient information for the Court to make that determination. Thus, the Secret Service shall submit a supplemental Vaughn index with sufficient detail as to the pages withheld or redacted under Exemption 3." The agency had also withheld personally-identifying information throughout the records under Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy) or Exemption 7(C) (invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records). McAtee argued the Secret Service had not identified the privacy interests in the redactions. The court, however, noted that the agency's affidavit "plainly identifies the stigma of being associated with an investigation and reasons that the public interest is diminished because names and identifying information reveal nothing about the conduct of the agency." McAtee indicated that she was alleging misconduct on the part of Whitefish employees. The court observed that "the requester's reason for seeking the information, however, is irrelevant to the Court's analysis."
Opinion/Order [37]Issues: Search - Referral, Exemption 7(C) - Invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records, Exemption 6 - Invasion of privacy, Exemption 3 - Limited agency discretion FOIA Project Annotation: After initially finding the Secret Service had failed to show why 29 pages of records should be withheld, a federal court in Montana has now ruled that the agency properly explained that all the documents fell under Exemption 3 (other statutes). The Secret Service claimed the records contained information provided to the grand jury and were protected by Rule 6(e) on grand jury secrecy. Deanna McAtee argued she was not interested in finding out about matters occurring before the grand jury but was instead interested in the contents of the records provided to the grand jury. Rejecting McAtee's attempt to distinguish the records from matters before the grand jury, the court noted that "McAtee seeks the records of private entities not directly from the private entities but instead from the Secret Service, which has the records as a result of a grand jury investigation. McAtee cannot use FOIA in this way to obtain the records she seeks in her case against Whitefish Credit Union."
Issues: Exemption 3 - Limited agency discretion | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
