United States District Court, D. Columbia
DUGAN, also known as PTS, Plaintiff, Pro se, San Jose, CA.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ALCOHOL, TOBACCO & FIREARMS, DRUG
ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION, HOMELAND SECURITY, Defendants:
Rafique Omar Anderson, LEAD ATTORNEY, U.S. ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE, Washington, DC.
CONTRERAS, United States District Judge.
March 12, 2015, the Court granted summary judgment to
defendants on all claims brought under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA), except the application of FOIA
exemption 7(A) to records maintained by the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATFE).
See Dugan v. Dep't of Justice, 82
F.Supp.3d 485 (D.D.C. 2015). ATFE processed the responsive
records, made a release to plaintiff on July 10, 2015, and
has renewed its motion for summary judgment. Defs.' Mot.
for Summ. J., ECF No. 24.
29, 2015, the Court advised plaintiff to respond to
ATFE's motion by September 11, 2015, or risk entry of
judgment for the defendants. See Order, ECF No. 25.
Plaintiff has not filed a response or moved for additional
time to do so. Consequently, the Court has reviewed
ATFE's summary judgment motion through the lens of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and, for the reasons
explained below, finds that summary judgment is warranted.
See Grimes v. D.C., 794 F.3d 83, 95 (D.C.
Cir. 2015) (" 'a district court must always
determine for itself
whether the record and any undisputed material facts justify
granting summary judgment.'" ) (quoting Griffith, J.
concurring); Dugan, 82 F.Supp.3d at 493-95
(discussing legal standard).
following facts are not in dispute. ATFE located 757 "
potentially" responsive records. Stmt. of Material Facts
¶ 6, ECF No. 24-2. On July 15, 2015, it released to
plaintiff a total of 565 pages, 396 of which contained
redactions. Id. ATFE withheld 145 pages completely;
it determined that 34 pages " were outside the
scope" of the request and 13 pages were duplicative.
Id. ATFE withheld information under FOIA exemptions
3, 5, 6, 7(C), 7(E), and 7(F). Id. ¶ ¶ 6,
on defendants' statement of undisputed material facts,
the Declaration of Stephanie M. Boucher, and the accompanying
Vaughn Index, the Court finds that defendants have
properly justified withholding information under the claimed
exemptions. See Boucher Decl. ¶ ¶ 8-15
(Firearms Trace Summaries and tax return information withheld
under exemption 3); id. ¶ ¶ 36-42
(attorney work product withheld under exemption 5);
id. ¶ ¶ 17-28 (third-party identifying
information withheld under personal privacy exemptions 6 and
7(C)); id. ¶ ¶ 29-32 (specific law
enforcement techniques, TECS codes and TECS file numbers
withheld under exemption 7(E)); id. ¶ ¶
33-35 (third-party information withheld under exemption 7(F)
for personal safety reasons). Boucher's explanations are
consistent with case law, and " [u]ltimately, an
agency's justification for invoking a FOIA exemption is
sufficient if it appears 'logical' or
'plausible.'" Dugan, 82 F.Supp.3d at
494 (quoting Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of
Defense, 715 F.3d 937, 941, 404 U.S.App.D.C. 462 (D.C.
Cir. 2013)) (other citation omitted). In addition, Boucher
avers that " each page" of responsive material was
reviewed " line-by-line" to ensure that all
reasonably segregable non-exempt information was disclosed to
plaintiff. Boucher Decl. ¶ 43.
absence of any challenge to ATFE's evidence showing full
compliance with FOIA's disclosure requirements, the Court
will grant summary judgment to defendants on the remaining
claim and will enter judgment accordingly.
reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion and in
the Memorandum Opinion of March 12, 2015, it is
that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. # 24]
is GRANTED. Judgment is entered for the Defendants on all
claims, and this ...