Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.


September 22, 2005.


The opinion of the court was delivered by: JOHN BATES, District Judge


Plaintiff Peter S. Herrick's Customs & International Trade Newsletter ("Herrick's") submitted a Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request to defendant U.S. Customs & Border Protection Bureau ("Customs") in late February 2003, requesting a copy of Customs' Fines, Penalties & Forfeitures Handbook, or equivalent material. Customs initially withheld all 351 pages of the pertinent publication, entitled Seized Asset Management Enforcement Procedures Handbook ("SAMEPH"), claiming exemption from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(2). In response to Herrick's written appeal, Customs acknowledged that portions of SAMEPH could be released. The ultimate result was that: (1) seventy-eight pages were fully withheld; (2) 180 pages were released with partial redactions; and (3) ninety-three pages were released in their entirety. Customs describes SAMEPH as an internal publication that "consolidates all of the standards and procedures in regard to initiating seizure, penalty, or liquidated damages actions; processing and managing such cases; and handling seized property." See Declaration of Joanne Roman Stump & Vaughn Index at 5 ("Stump Decl.").

Herrick's seeks to enjoin Customs from withholding the undisclosed material; Customs claims that the material is exempt under 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(b)(2), (b)(7)(E), and (b)(7)(F) ("Exemption 2," "Exemption 7(E)," and "Exemption 7(F)").*fn1 Initially, Customs also claimed the applicability of FOIA Exemptions 5 and 7(D),*fn2 but it has since abandoned these arguments. Customs submitted a Vaughn index and the declaration of Ms. Joanne Roman Stump, the FOIA Appeals Officer and Chief of the Disclosure Law Branch at Customs, and argues that these documents are sufficient to support the exemption claims and to establish that it has undertaken a proper segregability analysis of SAMEPH. Herrick's disagrees. Cross-motions for summary judgment are now pending. For the reasons discussed below, both motions are denied and Customs is ordered to re-file an updated, more specific Vaughn index.

  I. FOIA and Vaughn Index Background

  Congress enacted FOIA for the purpose of introducing transparency to government activities. See Stern v. FBI, 737 F.2d 84, 88 (D.C. Cir. 1984). Congress remained sensitive, however, to the need to achieve balance between this objective and the vulnerability of "legitimate governmental and private interests [that] 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). Accordingly, FOIA provides for nine exemptions pursuant to which an agency may withhold requested information. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(a)(4)(B), (b)(1)-(9).

  When an agency asserts a FOIA exemption as the basis for withholding requested information, this Circuit will ordinarily require an agency to produce a Vaughn index, which describes the records, or portions thereof, that the agency has withheld. See Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820, 827 (D.C. Cir. 1973); Edmonds Inst. v. United States Dep't of the Interior, ___ F. Supp. 2d ___, 2005 WL 2030316 at *1 (D.D.C. 2005) (citing Coldiron v. United States Dep't of Justice, 310 F. Supp. 2d 44, 46 (D.D.C. 2004)). The Vaughn index must include "a description of each document being withheld, and an explanation of the reason for the agency's nondisclosure." Oglesby v. United States Dep't of Army, 79 F.3d 1172, 1176-77 (D.C. Cir. 1996). On a motion for summary judgment, the Vaughn index becomes central not just to the court's determination of whether or not the agency has produced all reasonably segregable portions of the responsive material, as discussed infra in Section IV, but also to the court's determination of whether or not the claimed exemptions are sustained.

  II. Exemption 2

  The purpose of the Vaughn index is to provide fertile ground upon which to germinate the seeds of adversarial challenge. See Nat'l Treasury Employees Union v. United States Customs Serv., 802 F.2d 525, 527 (D.C. Cir. 1986). At minimum, competent adversarial testing requires that the party withholding the information articulate why the information is allegedly exempt. In this case, Customs has withheld information based on Exemption 2. This exemption applies to two types of material: (1) "high 2" information, which is information that, if disclosed, would risk circumvention of a legal objective, see, e.g., Schiller v. NLRB, 964 F.2d 1205, 1207 (D.C. Cir. 1992); and (2) "low 2" information, which is information relating to internal matters of a trivial, administrative nature, see id.

  Customs has made certain withholdings because the information is assigned "low 2" status, and has made other withholdings because the information benefits from "high 2" status. See Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J. at 2. But the Vaughn index does not delineate which of the withheld information is assigned "high 2" as opposed to "low 2" status. The fact that Herrick's has now clarified that it does not seek disclosure of the "low 2" information is of no moment because the Vaughn index's generic descriptions do not enable the Court to reliably discern which Exemption 2 withholdings concern the "high 2" information that Herrick's continues to seek. Thus, the Court cannot so much as determine which information is even subject to the argument that it should be disclosed. Hence, the Vaughn index is inadequate to enable reasoned decision-making. Customs is directed re-file the Vaughn index with specific identifications of "low 2" and "high 2" status for the information that is withheld under Exemption 2.

  II. Previously Claimed Exemption 5 and 7(D) Withholdings

  At the outset of this litigation, Customs indicated that certain of its SAMEPH withholdings were rooted in Exemptions 5 and 7(D). Customs has since abandoned those arguments, but the Vaughn index continues to reflect these withholdings. See, e.g., Vaughn Index at 15. To the extent that a designated withholding rests solely on a now-abandoned claim of exemption — of which it is impossible for this Court to be certain, because the Vaughn entries do not articulate which of several exemptions listed for a particular block of material applies to which portions of that material — Customs is directed to disclose the material to Herrick's. If the designated withholdings are justified under another exemption as well, Customs is directed to so specify in its revised Vaughn index.

  III. Segregability Determination

  A Vaughn index must provide "as much information as possible without thwarting the [asserted] exemption's purpose." King v. United States Dep't of Justice, 830 F.2d 210, 224-25 (D.C. Cir. 1987). Once an agency identifies a document that it believes falls within an exemption, it must undertake a "segregability analysis," in which it separates the exempt material from the non-exempt material and produces the relevant non-exempt information. See Vaughn, 484 F.2d at 825 (stating that "an entire document is not exempt merely because an isolated portion need not be disclosed. Thus the agency may not sweep a document under a general allegation of exemption, even if that general allegation is correct with regard to part of the information."). This segregability assessment is mandated by FOIA itself, which provides that any "reasonably segregable" information in exempt documents must be disclosed after redaction of exempt information, unless the non-exempt portions are "inextricably intertwined" with exempt portions. 5 U.S.C. 552(b); see Trans-Pacific Policing Agreement v. United States Customs Serv., 177 F.3d 1022, 1028 (D.C. Cir. 1999); Mead Data Cent., Inc. v. Dep't of the Air Force, 566 F.2d 242, 260 (D.C. Cir. 1977).

  The Vaughn index should contain a description of the segregability analysis, explaining "in detail which portions of the document are disclosable and which are allegedly exempt." Vaughn, 484 F.2d. at 827; see also King, 830 F.2d at 224 (quotation omitted) (stating that agency should provide a "relatively detailed justification, specifically identifying the reasons why a particular exemption is relevant and correlating those claims with the particular part of a withheld document to which they apply"). Otherwise, the document will not even qualify as a Vaughn index. See Schiller, 964 F.2d at 1210. The combination of a comprehensive, reasonably-detailed Vaughn index and an affidavit confirming that a line-by-line review of each document determined that no redacted information could be disclosed will ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.