RAD v. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE et al, No. 3:2015cv02415 - Document 65 (D.N.J. 2017)

Court Description: OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Anne E. Thompson on 1/31/2017. (mmh)

Download PDF
RAD v. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE et al Doc. 65 RECEIVED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 3 1 2017 AT 8:30 WILLIAM T. WALSH CLERK UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY M CHRISTOPHER RAD, Plaintiff, Civ. No. 15-2415 v. UNITED STATES.ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, OPINION Defendant. . ·.THOMPSON, U.S.D.J. INTRODUCTION This is before the Court upon a motion for summary filed bY." the United.StatesAttorney'.sOffice for the District ofNew Jersey ("Defendant").:·(ECF No: S6).: ·• Plaintiff Ghristopher Rad ("Plaintiff') opposes the (ECF No. 59). Plaintiff filed a motion to order production for in camera review, which Defendant addresses in its motion . ... ·-··. :- :-- . '-. .. .. :: . · · for summaryjudinient. (ECF No. 51). The Court has decided the subtnissioils of the parties_ and without oral argument pursuant to_ Rµle 78.J - For_-. the reasons stated herein, Defendant's motion for summary judgment will be granted and Plaintiffs motion to order production for in camera review will be denied .. : .. BACKGROUND On 30, 2012, \ convicted of six counts arising from_... a ·-· - . . fraud scheme. (See United States v. Rad, Cr. No. 11-0161, Jury Verdict, ECF No. 68). On or · _, "about February 5, 2015, Defendant received two Freedom of Information 1 Dockets.Justia.com from Plaintiff. 1 (Second Supplemental Deel. of Princina Stone ("Stone Deel.") 6, ECF No. 56-4). Plaintiff sought a variety of records related to his criminal case. (FOIA Requests, Stone Deel. Exs. A and B). On April 6, 2015, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant, alleging that Defendant had failed to respond to his FOIA requests within twenty days. (Pl.'s Compl. 7, ECFNo. 1). PlaintifPs First FOIA request sought the following information related to his criminal case, No. 3:11-CR-0016: "(i) Skype subpoenaed records for the identity 'trevman' and interview notes claimed to exist by FBI Agent Lauri Allen; (ii) The last known address and or any other contact information for Trevor Ruiz; (iii) The subpoena used to subpoem1 the Skype records claimed to exist by Allen, and return service of the subpoena; (iv) Any and all information from Qp,tonline andhow"itwas that subpoena by .• - - - r'· . 1:==-- retl1rn_o,f $ervice." (Stone Deel., Ex. A). Plaintiff's- second FOIA request also - . __. - sought information related to his criminal caset'·'(i} Any and The subpoena . -· . :- : . -- - - ·' - -· - -.' . . .. - .. - . - .. :... Deel.'; -· . .-. ·- _On September. 17, 2015,-.pefendarit . ' . ,. . :. - . - ::.;. . : :_:- _- .. .- -'_ . . -- - that are held . . (iii) Any and all from the Bank-ofAmerica related to tl!e above case;- return of service used to get the Bank- . - E-.golq . - ·' '': ..- ... . - . . .. - . B).:; . ·- - .- - - - -_ Executive - · . . ·;:· i : Plaintiff's requests, sending him relevant records on January 15, 2016, February 17, 2016, and - April 11, 2016. (Id. . ,. __ : were withheld_ in ·- -.. . -: __o1;)1:l fµJJ .•. -.···'"'".·- -·· they fell \}n<;ler_ _..,.·-- .. ·.· ...•. . :.:·_,· ... _ ·:. ;"'!.:·. .. ·.·'.. ·.. · . . ·. to :..,··.·.: . . to·Defendartt's_Sfateriient ofMaterialFacts· The Court notes that Plaintiff has.failed se_ status," the Court . in connection with this motion for -summary judgment. -Given Pla1ntiff':s will not consider this failure as Plaintiff's outright admission of the facts contained in . Defendant's Statement of Material Facts, biitrather will draw the relevant facts from the record. See Oguguo v. Wells Fargo Bank, 2016 WL 3o4fss3·, at *1 --- - · 1 2 FOIA Requests, Stone Deel. Exs. C and D). Additionally, the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") was also involved in reviewing and sending records to Plaintiff. (Stone Deel. 10). On March 18, 2016, the FBI sent Plaintiff responsive records, with certain deletions made pursuant to FOIA's (Fourth Declaration of David M. Hardy ("Hardy Deel.'') Ex. C, ECFNo. 57). Previously, Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and Defendant filed its first motion for summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 32, 35). On July 13th, this Court issued an opinion denying Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and-denying Defendant's first motion for summary judgment without prejudice ("July 13th Opinion,'_' ECF No. 46). Soon thereafter, following submissions by both parties and Plaintiff's-failure to oppose the _ · - · · requested by Plaintiff, the Cotutadvised the parties_ that the_ documents still at issue in this case are were resportsive:to Plaintiffs . •. -'=,, concerning E-gold and-- ·· . . . ·Plaintiff filed a motion to: ordef production for in_camera filed a -- - - - ___· - __ .. - ·' ,_ - . - for-suriunaryjudgffientc;n September 23, 2016. (ECF Nos. 51, 56). In _ .- > .:. . . .-- -- - -. . -· - . - and pefendant :_: - : ·- _- __ - - - . .... - ··-·-- - ::···- certain documents thafwere withheld - - ._:. _:._-·; · puisua.iit)o .. ' ... for in camera review;: Defendant's motion for summary judgment and Plaintiffs motion to order production for in - . camera review· . .· - ._ ·: ;" beforethe,_Court:·:- -"---•·-· . ::: .···· :. .. . .. apdJliatthe mo\"ant - . :: to)udgment as a matter oflaw." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex fu.decidingamotfoii"fOf summary 3- judgment, a district court considers the facts drawn from "the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials, and any affidavits" and must ''view the inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Curley v. Klem, 298 F.3d 271, 276-77 (3d Cir. 2002) (internal quotations omitted). hi resolving a motion for summary judgment, the Court must determine ''whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter oflaw." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 25152 (1986). Summary judgment is appropriate irt a FOIA case when the defendant's affidavits ''describe the withheld information and the justification for withholding with reasonable specificity, demonstrating a logical connection between the information and the claimed . - -- .·· __ . ....... _ . bYc . · -·agency bad contrary evidence .. ·. 1.-. ..... -.: Defemiag_t's: . . FQIA . - -·' .: - ·-: .-=- -:._ ... . . - - -_ Jan. 28; 2002) (citation - • • •• ' for : .. of - .. ---- -· -·. :.. ... -. - - ---. by _ perfonn searches that are "reasonably calculated to uncover - _.. _-,- -. --- .----· .. -. --: - - -::_ .· ---·· _ .... _"":"." . . -;;: . - l!llrelevant docwnentS/!,cAbdeifattah v. U.S. pep't ?(Homeland Sec., 488 F .3d 178, 182 (3d Cir. ::.-.:.- ... 2007) ( ·· .. u.s.· Dep 't 68 Cir. are then required .to produce. the _relevant documents urtless· one of nine FOIA exemptions applies . .. _: . _.. . x - _:.._. . 5· U :S.(;. §.- 552(b ---=-· .,.,_. - .- ._bears: :_- - " . - ...: . -_ '- agency exemptions applies,. then "[t]he agency -.... -· -· :· _...._ _one qf - . withhol4ing; ' an4 the. [district] . : · .... .... .. . . - the agency. claims . . - .. ·.· ·. ·. . . . . . ·.. .. . . -. v;.Il$:::Dep'to/Labor,- 220 F..3d 153, 160(3d . . - .-· . . err.. 2000) (citation.'c)initted)_(alteration in . . .. . 4 .- ,,:,,-_.. . - Therefore, there are two issues that the Cotirl wiil address in determining whether Defendant is entitled to summary judgment. First, whether the Government conducted an adequate search that was reasonably calculated to uncover all the documents relevant to Plaintiffs FOIA request, and second whether Defendant has proven that the relevant documents were properly withheld only as appropriate under the relevant FOIA exemptions. The Court will address each in turn. Adequacy of the Search I. ·In theJuly 13th Opinion, the Court previously determined that Plaintiff was not -challenging the adequacy of the search;< and that "it appears that [the Government]_ search was - reasonably calculated to reveal all relevant documents, thus fulfilling one ofFOIA's · 46). The parties.do notpresent.any new-·. ': argunients on this and Plaintiff again does not challenge the adequacy of the Government - . - < .)'- - search. (See Def.'s at_2,ECF No. 56-8; Pl.'s Br., ECF No. 59). The Court is satisfied that .. _:::-·"-· ·o _first is fulfilled.-· . · .l :II. - ·:_ o.f Documents under . - - The next . •. . -· Exemptions address - - -. - ·. - EOUSA.and:FBlproper,ly has proven that the - the appropriate FOIA exemptions. An agency can meet its burden by filing an affidavit that describes the material withheld and ·explains why _thatmateriaLfalls under_a :,.._:· -C·_··::;-> ..-.... ·· ,.__- . .:· -- •. ': '' -- .--: __ .. --_._::_:-;:;_··· ....Specifically; _ agenqies. ·__ -- . - --- . . the requirement was· , -_ -_ plaintiff McDonnell v. United States, 4 v. :' - -- . required to submit a - - . ··-· 484-F-.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. i 973) the case in which The Vaughn index must be sufficiently detailed so that the the district coiirt can obtain a "clear explanation of why each document or portion of 5 a document withheld is putatively exempt from disclosure." Hinton v. Dep't ofJustice, 844 F.2d 126, 129 (3d Cir. 1988). Defendant argues that documents responsive to Plaintiff's FOIA requests were properly withheld under Exemptions 3, 6, 7(C}, 7(D}, and 7(E). The documents still at issue in this case are those that were responsive to Plaintiff's FOIA requests for documents concerning E-gold and Trevor Ruiz, but were withheld. (Letter Order at 1, ECF No. 52). Therefore, the following of Plaintiff's initial requests are still at issue: (1) Skype subpoenaed records for the identity trevman _ and interview notes claimed to exist by FBI Agent Lauri Allen; (2) The last known address and ___ or any other contact information for Trevor The subpoena.used to subpoena the Skype records claimed to exist by Allen, and return service of the subpoena; (4) Any and all E-gold . :_ · :_- - records- thaf are-lield relating: to Plaintiff s>criminal- case;-(5):The subpoena and- return of service _ _ used to getthe E-gold records. The Court will address the five claimed exempti,ons and their - ,_-____ ·_/'applicability to the refovani"documents. -_ · -3 - - - FOIAExemp!1on 3 provides that an agency may withhold documents that are, "specificallyexempt_edfr_om 4isclosure by [another] statute." 5 U.S.C. §-552(b)(3). "Exemption- __ _ , _3 differs from the otper;FOIA exemptions in that its applicability depends less on the detailed ':· - - factual - documents. _Instead, the sole issues for decision in_ deteririining the applicability of Exemption 3 to a particular set of documents are the existence of [another] . statute . . - • :. •• . • • ·- ' . • - ":.._"o.. . . " 4-E_.3d-_122.7,J246(3d " • •• ·O·' ·;" - : of withheld material within the statute's coverage." McDonnell._ -__ - . 6(e), which • - : - " •: - - . 1993) (citation omitted). Federal Rule.ofCriminaL-: __ · c- · _ ·-; grand-jury proceedings and imposes a general nile of secrecy on many individuals present during grand jury proceedings, is a statute that falls withill'- - - - Exemptfon:3-:-McDonnell, 4 F.3d at 1246-47-(3d Cir. 1993); Amro v. U.S. Customs Serv., 128 F. -- - 6 Supp. 2d 776, 787 (E.D. Pa. "All grandjury subpoenas ... and therefore their dates of issuance fall within FOIA's third exemptions." Lopez v. Dep 't ofJustice, 393 F.3d 1345, 1350 (D.C. Cir. 2005). Here, EOUSA invoked Exemption 3 to withhold in full seven grand jury subpoenas and nine pages ofE-gold and Skype records obtained through grand jury subpoenas. See Stone Deel. 25; Ex. H (Second Supplemental Vaughn Index at 2-4). These documents relate to a federal grand jury proceeding and are governed by Rule 6(e). The release of information contained in these do.cuments has the potential to reveal substantive infonnation about a grand jury investigation. The Court finds that these documents fall within FOIA Exemption 3, and that the relevant documents were properly withheld under Exemption 3. b. Exemption 7(0). Exemption 7 protects from disclosure "records or information compiled for law - . -, ·-?:: =_:_.-i:{<<-;t. enforcement purposes" - .:· __ -,- result in one of the six set ; forth in 5 U.S.C. § for withholding under any subsection of Exemption?,: . . . rec9rds must first - - ... that they are "compiled for law - purposes." 5 U.S.A.§ 552(b)(7). An agency seeking to apply Exemption 7 "does not have to • :. • • •_ L • .• -identify a particular individua(o_r incident as the object of an investigation into a potential violation of law or securit)/risiE'--'rAbdelfattah,488 F.3d at 185 (citation omitted). Rather, the agency must only show "that the relationship between its authority to enforce a statute or .· .- ·. •• .'. - - - - . ------ -, and the ;,'-"'.: .... . : : - ; · . 7; •• - -··.·-.·.:•• ; . • support • - _. ..:.• giving·:rise to the requested documents is based upon suffiCient ---- · - - - - _. - of the relationship's rationality}' • • • afT86:.> '-: • •. • •• -· - ., One of the specific Exemptions within Exemption 7 is Exemption 7(D) which agency to withhold law enforceme!lt records if their release "could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source." See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(D). Under this 7 • - exemption, "a source should be deemed confidential if it furnished information with the understanding that the government would not divulge the communication except to the extent that the [agency] thought necessary for law enforcement purposes." McDonnell, 4 F.3d at 1258. Here, the FBI withheld thirty-four pages ofE-gold records pursuant to Exemption 7(D). (Hardy Deel. at if 30). These documents were compiled during the FBI's criminal investigation of Plaintiff, thus it is clear that they were withheld for law enforcement purposes. Further, Defendant claims that the FBI withheld the documents to protect the names, identifying data, and/or information provided by a confidential source under an express assurance of confidentiality. under 30.). The Court finds that theFBI properly withheld these documents. 7(D). a. _,, ·.·".. · . Exemption 6 and Exemption 7(C) ." ·:-::.·""- .. ,. to constitute an·.:: ·!.';'"''. . . • uriwarranted invasion of privacy;". 5 U.S.C." § 552(b)(7J(C). .. - .. J .. :'"," .. '_,v . . , • -::·-. - •' .. • • • . '-;) (C),, the requestor must first put forth a significant p:ublic: .. : .- ,: > ' • - ' - . .:--.:- ...: purposes" when its production "could . ... to Exemptioo7(C), an agency may refuse to disclose ,.•; .. :; : --- ..... L•_·, . .. .. • ' < . - : .. - . . :_ • " ... . - .. iil.terest more specifiq. ... ·.. ... . '• r • • -- . ·. than having the information for its own sake. Second, the [reque·stor] must show the information·· . . ·fc<·(.:is· likely to advance that interest. Otherwise; the invasion of privacY-fS · Nat'l·.· .. ·.. · .• ·.Archives & Records Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157, 172 (2004) . .-"Absent proof of [govemmentJ .· misconduct;" there is little reason to invade the privacy interests shielded by Exemption 7(C}. · -· ,Manna V; U.S. Dep 't ofJustice, 51 F.3d 1158, 1166 (3d Cir.1995).-.. J:·:c • <•• ··.files the disclosure of which- would constitute a clearly unwarranted · · , -· ·.·privacy." 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6). Exemption 6 covers "records that . ,;:;.._· - of personal. cm. be identified as applying . ' . to a particular individual"-not merely "those files that contain intimate details or highly 8 : personal information." Berger v. IRS, 288 F. App'x 829, 832 (3d Cir. 2008). Exemption 6 contemplates a similar balancing of interests as Exemption 7(C). McDonnell, 4 F.3d at 1252. In this case, the EOUSA and the FBI relied on Exemption 6 and 7(C) to withhold names, identifying infonnation, and records relating to (1) third party E-gold users or accountholders; (2) government employees involved in Plaintiffs investigation and prosecution, including FBI Special Agents; (3) third parties who were mentioned in FBI records; and (4) third parties who provided information to the FBI. (See Stone Deel. mf31-32; Ex. H (Vaughn Index at 1-5); Hardy Deel. mf 23-27). Plaintiffarguesthat the FBlhas not carried its burden in invoking Exemption 6 and- 7(C).- The Court disagrees.- -Further,-the Court is not persuaded that Plaintiffs unsubstantiated allegations of government misconduct constitute a sufficient public interest that would warrant. disclosrire is.the CoUrt persuadedctlia£the . -information here, which could risk the .. -. ,- ! :- • ·- .. safety, of those mune4 - -. - _,,, _.::.- :-: ·. of the withheld- -. .. - would - . ·_-; and 7(C)becausejt. .'.:·.:·has not Circuit has held.that- · "it is within the individuals.upon v. F.B.I., 567 behalf that privacy App'x 120, 122 (3d Cir. -- -... --- · alive." Frankenber,.Y: :: _ Defendanfhas-undertakeil substantial efforts to.·· attempt to ascertainthe,life status of the relevant indiVidualshere, including searching an· external database named ·· oeci. ir 31), The . .· -(Hardy . - and the court . . . . declines to require: the:relevant-agencies·:fo affirmatively demonstrate the life-status of the· individuals involved here. After bruancing the relevant considering all of the <;- 9 • • • -•.::;_··- · parties' arguments, the Court finds that Defendant properly withheld documents pursuant to both Exemptions 6 and 7(C). b. Exemption 7(E) An agency may withhold records that are "compiled for law enforcement purposes" under Exemption 7(E) when their production would disclose ''techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigation or prosecutions, or would disclose ·guidelines for law enforcement investigation or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention ofthelaw." 5 U.S.C. § An agency's burden in asserting exemption 7(E) is relatively low because, "[r]ather than requiring a highly specific burden of showing how !he will be_ <?_nl_y_ reguir.es the. [age11cy]. demonstrate · logically how-the.release ofthe .requested-inform.ationmightcreatea risk of circumvention of the .. \ 1•. Dep't ofJustice; 2dis:_wL·i 472227, at* lk(D.N.J.· Mar.-31, 2015) (citations· briginal). · ·_ . _ -i ' •FHeie, - . . ·· . . to protect - - . ·· - ... . . th; rirulie - . Defendanfargues that the disClo.sure:otthej1ame of the-undercovetopetation could provide . ·ctiniinals use ·_ ·. circi.urrvent future· operatfons. The FBralso asserted , - Ullilercover operation - specific to -- ·__ . - ..__.,. .-:. . .. ·.- (E)Jo prgtectinfop11atiori - . , .:- . . _ .· . - : - ...... -. ->... · :-··_:..·.·--.h; ...- -.__.-· ':.--. to whethepu1 is ·as -.. __ . - 7(E)to protect an internal, non-33). Finally, the FBI also -·- co@termeasures to . · . - _·- - .. " Qonsidering the low burden . that is req11ired· under ExemptiOn 7(E), the _Court finds that pl"operly withhe\p - - - ... pursuant to E)(emptioµ 7(E). · - In sum, the Court has reviewed the submissions of the parties and has also reviewed certain withheld documents submitted to the Court for in camera review by Defendant. After doing so, the Court is persuaded that Defendant has "describe[d] the withheld information and the justification for withholding with reasonable specificity, demonstrating a logical connection between the information and the claimed exemption." Carp, 2002 WL 373448, at *4 (citation· omitted). Therefore, the Court will grant Defendant's motion for summary judgment. II. Plaintiff's Motion to Order Production for In Camera Review Defendant submitted certain documents to this Court in connection with its motion for summary judgment. These-documents are: (l) Exhibit I to the Stone Declaration, consisting of a "see-throug}i" copy of the documeJ?.tS as Exhibit G to the Stone Declaration; (2) Exhibit a _ -E tc)the Hardy:tieclaration,:consisting of · ExhibitD.totheHardyDeclaratfon; _ - arid {3)ExhibitJ to.theHardy.Declaration, consisting of a of the document attached as Exhibit I to the Hargy Declaration. In his c.;; .. :<.,?.:•i• _:,:7 - .· --- of the docuhients· attached as - . , do so:. - ' -, .. iI1camemreview,·.Plaintiff . . to produce Plaintiff's motion to order production for in camera· review-will be denied. ' Fofthe:Teasons discussed --,, : . Defendarit' s motion for-suritinary judgment will be · granted and Plaintiff's motion to order:ptoductiOn for in camera review will be denied. An -. - -- ,-::::, .. --·-_: ' . - ... -/::.$/_I.· .... ·. •·•. ....• ·.···•••··•··•· .. l . . .. 11

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.