request and sought documents already determined to be exempt from disclosure in Lesar, supra.
Plaintiff's fifth request, on January 15, 1981 sought access to records relating to the efforts of the State of Tennessee to transfer him to federal custody. Plaintiff contends that his requests "were never answered substantially." The Court holds that the defendant responded to plaintiff's request to the full extent required by law. Plaintiff's request was forwarded to a number of different government offices. The first of these, the Criminal Division of the DOJ informed plaintiff that it had no records responsive to his request. The second office, EOUSA, referred the petition to the Office of the Attorney General and the Bureau of Prisons. The Office of the Attorney General released all relevant documents. The Bureau of Prisons released all documents except one. Upon in camera inspection the Court finds that the document that was withheld was properly retained under FOIA exemption 5. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5). The disputed document was a memorandum from the General Counsel to the Director of the Bureau of Prisons. As such, it is exempt from disclosure as attorney work product. See Coastal States Gas Corp. v. Department of Energy, 199 U.S. App. D.C. 272, 617 F.2d 854, 862 (D.C. Cir. 1980).
Plaintiff's sixth request on April 20, 1981 sought access to documents pertaining to DOJ representation of Conrad Baetz in Ray v. United States Department of Justice, C.A. No. 80-0963 (E.D. Miss.). Both the EOUSA and the Civil Division of the DOJ -- the agencies to which the request was referred -- made full disclosure of all documents responsive to the request.
Plaintiff made his seventh and final request on May 7, 1981, seeking access to a personal file concerning Congressman Louis Stokes.
The FBI informed plaintiff that the PA required written authorization from the individual whose file was requested before the file would be released. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b). Because such authorization was not forthcoming, the FBI did not act further upon plaintiff's request. The Court holds that the FBI acted properly and lawfully in this regard.
In addition to plaintiff's specific allegations related to the delineated requests discussed above, Plaintiff's Motion for summary judgment alleges generally, that defendant has failed to provide accurate information as to the documents in its possession. Relying upon Pratt v. Webster, 508 F. Supp. 751 (D.D.C. 1981) plaintiff contends that the Court should require the DOJ to submit an affidavit stating whether or not certain files contain information about plaintiff. However, plaintiffs reliance on Pratt is misplaced. The plaintiff in Pratt introduced sufficient evidence to "raise serious and sufficient enough doubts about bad faith to require an explanation." Id. at 764. In this case plaintiff has adduced no such evidence, and, therefore, the Court has no basis on which to require such a remedy.
Based upon the foregoing the Court finds that defendant properly handled all of plaintiff's request except that it improperly withheld the addresses of the three individuals who had requested information about plaintiff.
An order in accordance with the foregoing shall be issued of even date herewith.
Upon consideration of the parties' cross motions for summary judgment and the oppositions thereto, and, the entire record herein, and for the reasons set forth in the Memorandum Opinion in the above-captioned action of even date herewith, it is by the Court, this 15th day of September, 1982, hereby,
ORDERED that defendant shall disclose to plaintiff the addresses of the three individuals who had requested information about plaintiff that were withheld from plaintiff; and it is further,
ORDERED that in all other respects Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied; and it is further,
ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted in all parts not inconsistent with the foregoing; and it is further,
ORDERED that the complaint be, and the same hereby is, dismissed with prejudice.