I N THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DI STRI CT OF PENNSYLVANI A

TUAN SAMAHON : CI VI L ACTI ON
: NO. 12- 4839
Pl ai nt i f f , :
:
v. :
:
FEDERAL BUREAU OF I NVESTI GATI ON, :
et al . , :
:
Def endant s. :

M E M O R A N D U M

EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J . August 25, 2014

Thi s i s a case about abuse of gover nment al power by
seni or of f i ci al s i n t he f eder al gover nment . Al t hough t echni cal l y
f r amed as a r equest f or di scl osur e of cer t ai n i nf or mat i on i n t he
f i l es of t he Feder al Bur eau of I nvest i gat i on ( FBI ) pur suant t o
t he Fr eedomof I nf or mat i on Act ( FOI A) , at bot t om, t he case i s
about t he abi l i t y of t he f eder al gover nment t o pr y i nt o t he
pr i vat e l i ves of U. S. ci t i zens wi t h vi r t ual i mpuni t y.
The case i mpl i cat es t he hi ghest l evel s of t he f eder al
gover nment , i ncl udi ng Pr esi dent Lyndon B. J ohnson, Associ at e
J ust i ce of t he Supr eme Cour t Abe For t as, and seni or FBI
of f i ci al s i ncl udi ng FBI Di r ect or J . Edgar Hoover . The subj ect of
t he gover nment s i nt er est was Geor ge Hami l t on, a f i l mand
t el evi si on act or who at t he t i me ( ci r ca 1966) was dat i ng Lynda
Bi r d J ohnson, t he Pr esi dent s ol dest daught er .
I t appear s t hat ei t her out of f at her l y wor r y or f ear s of
pol i t i cal embar r assment , Pr esi dent J ohnson was concer ned wi t h
t he r el at i onshi p. Thi s concer n l ed hi mt o i nvol ve bot h t he FBI
and Associ at e J ust i ce Abe For t as i n a di scr eet i nvest i gat i on
of Geor ge Hami l t on s per sonal l i f e. The f act s of t hi s i nqui r y
conduct ed by FBI agent s ar e enshr i ned i n t he r ecor ds of t he FBI
and l i e at t he cent er of t hi s case. Ul t i mat el y, t he i nqui r y
uncover ed l i t t l e, i f any, negat i ve i nf or mat i on about Geor ge
Hami l t on, but i t r eveal s much about t he ways and means of t he
gover nment s i nvest i gat i on of pr i vat e ci t i zens i n t he 1960s.
Thi s memor andumopi ni on pr oceeds i n f our par t s. Fi r st ,
t he opi ni on di scusses t he pr ocedur al and f act ual backgr ound of
t he case. Second, i t del i neat es t he gener al pr i nci pl es of t he
FOI A t hat gover n t he Cour t s anal ysi s. Thi r d, i t exami nes t he
f act ual submi ssi ons pr ovi ded t o t he Cour t by t he FBI . Fi nal l y,
i t appl i es t he l aw t o t hose f act s t o det er mi ne whet her t he FBI
pr oper l y wi t hhel d t he r equest ed i nf or mat i on. For t he r easons
expl ai ned her ei n, t he Cour t concl udes t hat t he FBI s deni al of
Pl ai nt i f f s r equest s was i n vi ol at i on of t he br oad di scl osur e
r equi r ement s set f or t h i n t he FOI A.
I. BACKGROUND
Pl ai nt i f f Tuan Samahon ( Pl ai nt i f f ) i s a pr of essor of
l aw at Vi l l anova Law School who i s r esear chi ng t he 1969
2

r esi gnat i on of Associ at e J ust i ce Abe For t as f r omt he Uni t ed
St at es Supr eme Cour t . Compl . 1, ECF No. 1. Speci f i cal l y,
Pl ai nt i f f i s f ocusi ng on t he pot ent i al r ol e t hat t he FBI , under
t he di r ect i on of f or mer FBI Di r ect or J . Edgar Hoover , had i n
J ust i ce For t as s r esi gnat i on.
As par t of t hat r esear ch, Pl ai nt i f f submi t t ed a FOI A
r equest t o t he FBI on J anuar y 4, 2010, r equest i ng di scl osur e of
a copy of an i nt er nal FBI memor andumr ef er r ed t o as t he DeLoach
Memor andum. Compl . 6. The DeLoach Memor andumi s a t wo- page
document dat ed Oct ober 25, 1966, t hat was sent by t hen- Deput y
FBI Di r ect or Car t ha DeLoach t o Cl yde Tol son, t he Associ at e
Di r ect or of t he FBI at t he t i me. Compl . 7 & Ex. 1, DeLoach
Memo 1. I n r esponse t o t he FOI A r equest , t he FBI pr ovi ded a copy
of t he DeLoach Memor andumt o Pl ai nt i f f , but r edact ed f r omt he
document t wo f i f t een- char act er segment s ( her ei naf t er r ef er r ed t o
as t he Redact ed Memor andum) .
1
Compl . 8 & DeLoach Mem. 1.
Accor di ng t o t he FBI s r epr esent at i ons t o Pl ai nt i f f , t hose t wo
r edact i ons cont ai n t he name of a l i vi ng i ndi vi dual . Compl .
10, 38.
As i s appar ent even wi t h t he r edact i ons, t he subj ect of
t he DeLoach Memor andumi s a t el ephone conver sat i on DeLoach had
1
A pr evi ous FOI A r equest er had obt ai ned an i dent i cal l y
r edact ed ver si on of t he DeLoach Memor andum. Ex. t o Def s. Mot .
Summ. J . , 1st Har dy Decl . Ex. A, FOI A Request , J an. 1, 2010, ECF
No. 10.
3


wi t h J ust i ce For t as on t he mor ni ng of Oct ober 25, 1966. The
f i r st r edact i on occur s i n t he subj ect l i ne of t he memo, whi ch
st at es: RE: CONVERSATI ON WI TH J USTI CE FORTAS [ REDACTED]
MATTER; BLACK CASE. DeLoach Mem. 1. The second r edact i on i s i n
t he f i r st par agr aph of t he document , whi ch r eads as f ol l ows:
For r ecor d pur poses, J ust i ce For t as cal l ed
at 10: 30 t hi s mor ni ng t o expr ess
appr eci at i on f or t he i nf or mat i on t he
Di r ect or had me f ur ni sh hi m concer ni ng t he
[ REDACTED] mat t er . J ust i ce For t as advi sed he
agr eed wi t h t he Di r ect or t hat no f ur t her
act i on need be t aken at t hi s t i me. He st at ed
he woul d get i n t ouch wi t h us i n t he event
f ur t her i nqui r i es shoul d be made.
I d.
The DeLoach Memor andumt hen descr i bes DeLoach s ex par t e
di scussi on wi t h J ust i ce For t as r egar di ng t he mat t er of Bl ack v.
Uni t ed St at es, 385 U. S. 26 ( 1966) , a case t hat was pendi ng
bef or e t he Supr eme Cour t at t he t i me. DeLoach Mem. 1. The Bl ack
case i nvol ved t he use of f eder al wi r et appi ng and el ect r oni c
sur vei l l ance i nvest i gat i ve t echni ques, Compl . 13, and DeLoach
i ndi cat ed t o J ust i ce For t as t hat t he FBI was somewhat
concer ned wi t h t he case s pot ent i al out come, DeLoach Mem. 1.
Accor di ng t o t he DeLoach Memor andum, DeLoach asked J ust i ce
For t as when a deci si on woul d be handed down. I d. J ust i ce
For t as had r ecused hi msel f f r omt he case, but he i ndi cat ed t o
DeLoach t hat t her e woul d pr obabl y be a deci si on i n a week, and
he advi sed DeLoach t hat t he Cour t s deci si on woul d not be
4

def i ni t i ve and t hat t he Cour t t hought t he case shoul d not be
handl ed at [ t he] Supr eme Cour t l evel . I d. ; see al so Compl .
15. DeLoach i nt er pr et ed t hat st at ement t o mean t hat t he case
woul d be r emanded t o t he l ower cour t . DeLoach Mem. 1. The
Memor andumconcl udes by st at i ng: Pur suant t o t he Di r ect or s
i nst r uct i ons, we ar e i mmedi at el y checki ng t o f i nd out t he
i dent i t y of t he j udge who handl ed t hi s mat t er i n t he l ower
cour t . A memor andumwi l l be sent t hr ough on hi mj ust as soon as
hi s i dent i t y i s ascer t ai ned. I d. Fi nal l y, t he DeLoach
Memor andumi ncl udes an addendum asser t i ng t hat J ust i ce For t as
di d not act i mpr oper l y or vi ol at e et hi cal r equi r ement s by
di vul gi ng i nf or mat i on about t he Bl ack case.
2
I d. at 2. A copy of
t he Redact ed Memor andumi s at t ached t o t hi s memor andumas
Exhi bi t A.
Based on hi s pr evi ous r esear ch on J ust i ce For t as and t he
Hoover FBI , Pl ai nt i f f t heor i zes t hat t he DeLoach Memor andum
r ef l ect s an ef f or t by t he FBI t o bl ackmai l J ust i ce For t as i nt o
pr ovi di ng i mpr oper i nf or mat i on about t he Supr eme Cour t s
handl i ng of t he Bl ack case. Pl . s Cr oss- Mot . Summ. J . 30, ECF
2
Accor di ng t o Pl ai nt i f f , DeLoach cont r adi ct ed t hat
por t r ayal of J ust i ce For t as s act i ons i n a memoi r DeLoach
publ i shed i n 1995, i n whi ch he st at es: Of cour se For t as s
i nvol vement i n [ l eaki ng i nf or mat i on about Bl ack v. Uni t ed
St at es] was bl at ant l y unet hi cal . Compl . 18 ( quot i ng Car t ha
DeLoach, Hoover s FBI : The I nsi de St or y by Hoover s Tr ust ed
Li eut enant 58 ( 1995) ) ( al t er at i ons and emphasi s i n Compl ai nt ) .
5


No. 13. Speci f i cal l y, Pl ai nt i f f specul at es t hat t he r edact ed
name i s a per son wi t h whomJ ust i ce For t as had some sor t of
i l l i ci t or i mpr oper r el at i onshi p, and t hat DeLoach used t he
FBI s knowl edge of t hat r el at i onshi p t o i nt i mi dat e J ust i ce
For t as i nt o unet hi cal l y di scl osi ng det ai l s about t he Bl ack case.
See i d. at 30- 33. Pl ai nt i f f suppor t s t hat t heor y wi t h var i ous
f or ms of hi st or i cal evi dence, i ncl udi ng a document ed encount er
bet ween J ust i ce For t as and DeLoach i n whi ch DeLoach shar ed wi t h
For t as an al l egat i on t hat For t as had engaged i n sexual act s wi t h
a mal e pr ost i t ut e at a t i me bef or e hi s nomi nat i on t o t he Supr eme
Cour t . I d. ; see al so Compl . Ex. 2, Tol son Let t er , J ul y 24, 1967.
On August 22, 2012, af t er exhaust i ng hi s admi ni st r at i ve
r emedi es, Pl ai nt i f f f i l ed t he or i gi nal compl ai nt i n t he i nst ant
l i t i gat i on ( t he Or i gi nal Compl ai nt ) agai nst t he FBI and t he
U. S. Depar t ment of J ust i ce ( col l ect i vel y, t he Gover nment ) , i n
whi ch Pl ai nt i f f asser t s t hat t he FBI s r edact i on of t he DeLoach
Memor andumwas i n vi ol at i on of t he FOI A and of t he
Admi ni st r at i ve Pr ocedur e Act ( APA) . The par t i es f i l ed cr oss-
mot i ons f or summar y j udgment and, on August 27, 2013, t he Cour t
deni ed t he mot i ons wi t hout pr ej udi ce, f i ndi ng t her e t o be
i nsuf f i ci ent evi dence i n t he r ecor d f or t he Cour t t o det er mi ne
whet her any of t he FOI A s exempt i ons t o di scl osur e appl y. See
Def s. Mot . Summ. J . 1, ECF No. 9; Pl . s Cr oss- Mot . Summ. J . 1;
Or der , Aug. 27, 2013, ECF No. 17. The par t i es subsequent l y f i l ed
6

suppl ement al mot i ons f or summar y j udgment , whi ch ar e r i pe f or
r esol ut i on. See Def s. Suppl . Mot . Summ. J . 1, ECF No. 23; Pl . s
Renewed Mot . Summ. J . , ECF No. 27.
Then, wi t h t he suppl ement al mot i ons st i l l pendi ng,
Pl ai nt i f f was gr ant ed l eave t o f i l e a suppl ement al compl ai nt
r egar di ng an addi t i onal al l eged FOI A vi ol at i on t hat ar ose dur i ng
t he cour se of t he l i t i gat i on ( t he Suppl ement al Compl ai nt ) .
Suppl . Compl . , ECF No. 30. The Suppl ement al Compl ai nt addr esses
t he FBI s handl i ng of a second FOI A r equest f i l ed by Pl ai nt i f f
on Oct ober 19, 2012. That FOI A r equest sought t he cont ent s of
FBI Fi l e No. 62- HQ- 110654, whi ch i s t he f i l e i n whi ch t he
DeLoach Memor andumi s l ocat ed, and, accor di ng t o t he FBI , i s t he
backgr ound check f i l e f or t he i ndi vi dual whose name i s r edact ed
f r omt he DeLoach Memor andum. The FBI acknowl edged r ecei pt of
Pl ai nt i f f s FOI A r equest by l et t er dat ed Oct ober 24, 2012, but
i t di d not ot her wi se r espond t o t he r equest unt i l Pl ai nt i f f
f i l ed t he Suppl ement al Compl ai nt , at whi ch poi nt t he FBI
cat egor i cal l y wi t hhel d t he f i l e by l et t er dat ed December 9,
2013. See Pl . s Mot . Leave Fi l e Suppl . Compl . Ex. B. , Request
Conf i r mat i on, Oct . 24, 2012, ECF No. 21- 2; Pl . s Mot . Leave Fi l e
2nd Suppl . Compl . Ex. 1, FOI A Deni al Let t er , Dec. 9, 2013, ECF
No. 36. The Cour t t hen gr ant ed Pl ai nt i f f l eave t o add a second
FOI A cl ai mt o t he Suppl ement al Compl ai nt based upon t he
Gover nment s al l eged f ai l ur e t o r el ease r easonabl y segr egabl e,
7

nonexempt mat er i al f r omt he r equest ed f i l e. See Or der , J an. 28,
2014, ECF No. 37. The par t i es have f i l ed cr oss- mot i ons f or
summar y j udgment on t he cl ai ms i n t he Suppl ement al Compl ai nt ,
and t hose mot i ons ar e al so now r i pe f or r esol ut i on. See Def s.
2nd Suppl . Mot . Summ. J . 1, ECF No. 35; Pl . s 3r d Mot . Summ. J .
1, ECF No. 38.
I n an ef f or t t o r esol ve t he pendi ng set s of cr oss- mot i ons
f or summar y j udgment , t he Cour t or der ed t he Gover nment t o submi t
an unr edact ed ver si on of t he DeLoach Memor andumf or i n camer a
r evi ew. Or der , Apr . 23, 2014, ECF No. 41. The Cour t f ur t her
r equest ed a suppl ement al af f i davi t and document i ndex descr i bi ng
mor e pr eci sel y t he basi s f or wi t hhol di ng t he document s t hat ar e
t he subj ect of t he second FOI A r equest . I d. Af t er r evi ewi ng
t hose submi ssi ons, t he Cour t al so or der ed an i n camer a r evi ew of
FBI Fi l e No. 62- HQ- 110654 ( her ei naf t er , t he Wi t hhel d Fi l e) , as
wel l as a r esponse f r omPl ai nt i f f t o t he Gover nment s
suppl ement al submi ssi ons. Or der , May 29, 2014, ECF No. 48.
Fi nal l y, t he Cour t or der ed an ex par t e hear i ng wi t h counsel f or
t he Gover nment , whi ch was hel d on J une 27, 2014. Or der , J une 19,
2014, ECF No. 51. I n advance of t he hear i ng, Pl ai nt i f f submi t t ed
pr oposed quest i ons f or t he Cour t t o ask t he Gover nment , whi ch
t he Cour t t ook under advi sement . Pl . s St at ement , J une 26, 2014,
ECF No. 52. The ent i r e mat t er i s now r i pe f or di sposi t i on.
8

II. THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
Under t he FOI A, any agency, upon any r equest , must
make r ecor ds pr ompt l y avai l abl e t o any per son. Am. Ci vi l
Li ber t i es Uni on of N. J . v. FBI , 733 F. 3d 526, 531 ( 3d Ci r . 2013)
( quot i ng 5 U. S. C. 552( a) ( 3) ( A) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks
omi t t ed) . The pur pose of t he st at ut e i s t o f aci l i t at e publ i c
access t o Gover nment document s, and t he st at ut e r ef l ect s a
gener al phi l osophy of f ul l agency di scl osur e. Manna v. U. S.
Dep t of J ust i ce, 51 F. 3d 1158, 1163 ( 3d Ci r . 1995) ( i nt er nal
quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ; see al so U. S. Dep t of St at e v. Ray,
502 U. S. 164, 173 ( 1991) ( The st at ut e was desi gned t o pi er ce
t he vei l of admi ni st r at i ve secr ecy and t o open agency act i on t o
t he l i ght of publ i c scr ut i ny. ( quot i ng Dep t of Ai r For ce v.
Rose, 425 U. S. 352, 361 ( 1976) ) ) . As such, t her e i s a st r ong
pr esumpt i on i n f avor of di scl osur e. Ray, 502 U. S. at 173.
But despi t e t he st r ong pr esumpt i on i n f avor of
di scl osur e, publ i c access t o gover nment i nf or mat i on i s not al l
encompassi ng. Sheet Met al Wor ker s I nt l Ass n, Local Uni on No.
19 v. U. S. Dep t of Vet er ans Af f ai r s, 135 F. 3d 891, 897 ( 3d Ci r .
1998) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . I n par t i cul ar , t he
FOI A exempt s ni ne cat egor i es of document s f r omi t s br oad
di scl osur e r equi r ement s. See 5 U. S. C. 552( b) ; U. S. Dep t of
J ust i ce v. Repor t er s Comm. f or Fr eedomof t he Pr ess, 489 U. S.
749, 755 ( 1989) . Most r el evant her e ar e Exempt i ons 6 and 7( C) ,
9

whi ch ar e descr i bed i n dept h bel ow. Put si mpl y, Exempt i on 6
exempt s f r omdi scl osur e per sonnel and medi cal f i l es and si mi l ar
f i l es t he di scl osur e of whi ch woul d const i t ut e a cl ear l y
unwar r ant ed i nvasi on of per sonal pr i vacy. 5 U. S. C. 552( b) ( 6) .
Exempt i on 7( C) excl udes r ecor ds or i nf or mat i on compi l ed f or l aw
enf or cement pur poses, but onl y t o t he ext ent t hat t he
pr oduct i on of such [ mat er i al s] . . . coul d r easonabl y be
expect ed t o const i t ut e an unwar r ant ed i nvasi on of per sonal
pr i vacy. Repor t er s Comm. , 489 U. S. at 756 ( quot i ng
552( b) ( 7) ( C) ) ( al t er at i ons i n or i gi nal ) . Once t r i gger ed, bot h
exempt i ons r equi r e cour t s t o bal ance t he publ i c i nt er est i n
di scl osur e agai nst t he i nt er est Congr ess i nt ended t he exempt i on
t o pr ot ect . U. S. Dep t of Def ense v. Fed. Labor Rel at i ons
Aut h. , 510 U. S. 487, 495 ( 1994) ( al t er at i on omi t t ed) .
When assessi ng whet her a r ecor d i s cover ed by one of
t hose exempt i ons, cour t s must keep i n mi nd t hat whet her an
i nvasi on of pr i vacy i s war r ant ed cannot t ur n on t he pur poses f or
whi ch t he r equest f or i nf or mat i on i s made. I d. at 496 ( quot i ng
Repor t er s Comm. , 489 U. S. at 771) ( emphasi s omi t t ed) . As t he
Supr eme Cour t has r epeat edl y expl ai ned, Congr ess cl ear l y
i nt ended t he FOI A t o gi ve any member of t he publ i c as much
r i ght t o di scl osur e as one wi t h a speci al i nt er est [ i n a
par t i cul ar document ] . Repor t er s Comm. , 489 U. S. at 771
( quot i ng NLRB v. Sear s, Roebuck & Co. , 421 U. S. 132, 149 ( 1975) )
10

( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) . Ther ef or e, except i n cases i nvol vi ng a
cl ai mof pr i vi l ege, t he i dent i t y of t he r equest i ng par t y has no
bear i ng on t he mer i t s of hi s or her FOI A r equest . I d. The
Supr eme Cour t has f ur t her caut i oned l ower cour t s t o r emember
t hat once t her e i s di scl osur e, t he i nf or mat i on bel ongs t o t he
gener al publ i c. Nat l Ar chi ves & Recor ds Admi n. v. Favi sh, 541
U. S. 157, 174 ( 2004) . Ther e i s no mechani smunder [ t he] FOI A
f or a pr ot ect i ve or der al l owi ng onl y t he r equest er t o see
whet her t he i nf or mat i on bear s out hi s t heor y, or f or pr oscr i bi ng
i t s gener al di ssemi nat i on. I d.
Fi nal l y, because of t he pr esumpt i on f avor i ng di scl osur e,
j udi ci al r evi ew of an agency deci si on t o wi t hhol d r ecor ds
di f f er s f r omr evi ew of ot her agency act i ons, whi ch gener al l y
must be uphel d i f suppor t ed by subst ant i al evi dence and not
ar bi t r ar y or capr i ci ous. Repor t er s Comm. , 489 U. S. at 755. The
FOI A adopt s a mor e r i gor ous f or mof j udi ci al r evi ew, expr essl y
pl ac[ i ng] t he bur den on t he agency t o sust ai n i t s act i on and
di r ect [ i ng] t he di st r i ct cour t s t o det er mi ne t he mat t er de
novo. I d. ( quot i ng 5 U. S. C. 552( a) ( 4) ( B) ) . The Thi r d Ci r cui t
has hel d t hat an agency can meet i t s bur den by f i l i ng
af f i davi t s descr i bi ng t he mat er i al wi t hhel d and det ai l i ng why i t
f i t s wi t hi n t he cl ai med exempt i on. Manna, 51 F. 3d at 1163. I f
t hose af f i davi t s descr i be t he wi t hhel d i nf or mat i on and t he
j ust i f i cat i on f or wi t hhol di ng wi t h r easonabl e speci f i ci t y,
11

demonst r at i ng a l ogi cal connect i on bet ween t he i nf or mat i on and
t he cl ai med exempt i on, and ar e not cont r over t ed by ei t her
cont r ar y evi dence i n t he r ecor d nor by evi dence of agency bad
f ai t h, t hen t he agency i s gener al l y ent i t l ed t o summar y
j udgment . I d. at 1163- 64 ( quot i ng Am. Fr i ends Ser v. Comm. v.
Dep t of Def ense, 831 F. 3d 441, 444 ( 3d Ci r . 1987) ) . I f a
di st r i ct cour t det er mi nes t hat t he agency s showi ng i s
i nadequat e t o meet i t s bur den, however , t he cour t has
j ur i sdi ct i on t o enj oi n t he agency f r omwi t hhol di ng agency
r ecor ds and t o or der t he pr oduct i on of any agency r ecor ds
i mpr oper l y wi t hhel d f r omt he compl ai nant . 5 U. S. C.
552( a) ( 4) ( B) .
III. FACTUAL BASIS FOR THE COURTS ANALYSIS
Bef or e eval uat i ng whet her an asser t ed exempt i on t o
di scl osur e appl i es, a di st r i ct cour t must ensur e t hat i t has an
adequat e f act ual basi s t o make an i nf or med det er mi nat i on.
McDonnel l v. Uni t ed St at es, 4 F. 3d 1227, 1242 ( 3d Ci r . 1993) . I n
most FOI A cases, t her e i s an i nher ent i mbal ance i n t he
l i t i gat i on, as t he par t y seeki ng di scl osur e does not know t he
cont ent s of t he i nf or mat i on sought , and so i s hel pl ess t o
cont r adi ct t he gover nment s descr i pt i on of t he i nf or mat i on or
ef f ect i vel y assi st t he t r i al j udge. Davi n v. U. S. Dep t of
J ust i ce, 60 F. 3d 1043, 1049 ( 3d Ci r . 1995) . To cor r ect t hat
12

asymmet r i cal di st r i but i on of knowl edge, cour t s gener al l y
r equi r e t he agency t o submi t publ i c af f i davi t s, of t en r ef er r ed
t o as a Vaughn i ndex,
3
t hat est abl i sh a det ai l ed f act ual basi s
f or appl i cat i on of t he cl ai med FOI A exempt i ons t o each of t he
document s wi t hhel d. I d. at 1049- 50. I deal l y, such publ i c
af f i davi t s wi l l per mi t adequat e adver sar y t est i ng of t he
agency s cl ai med r i ght t o an exempt i on, and enabl e t he
Di st r i ct Cour t t o make a r at i onal deci si on whet her t he wi t hhel d
mat er i al must be pr oduced wi t hout act ual l y vi ewi ng t he document s
t hemsel ves. McDonnel l , 4 F. 3d at 1241 ( quot i ng Ki ng v. U. S.
Dep t of J ust i ce, 830 F. 2d 210, 219 ( D. C. Ci r . 1987) ) .
I f t he publ i c af f i davi t s pr ove i nsuf f i ci ent f or t he cour t
t o make a r easoned det er mi nat i on, however , t he FOI A gr ant s
di st r i ct cour t s t he aut hor i t y t o or der i n camer a i nspect i on of
agency r ecor ds. 5 U. S. C. 552( a) ( 4) ( B) ( pr ovi di ng t hat t he
cour t may exami ne t he cont ent s of such agency r ecor ds i n camer a
t o det er mi ne whet her such r ecor ds or any par t t her eof shal l be
wi t hhel d) ; see al so Lame v. U. S. Dep t of J ust i ce, 654 F. 2d
917, 922 ( 3d Ci r . 1981) ( I n bot h t he or di nar y and t he
except i onal case, i n camer a af f i davi t s and submi ssi ons ar e
3
The Thi r d Ci r cui t has def i ned a Vaughn i ndex as an
i ndex cor r el at i ng each wi t hhel d document , or a por t i on t her eof ,
wi t h a speci f i c exempt i on and r el evant par t of an agency s
j ust i f i cat i on f or nondi scl osur e. Davi n, 60 F. 3d at 1047 n. 1.
The concept of a Vaughn i ndex or i gi nat ed wi t h t he D. C. Ci r cui t s
deci si on i n Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F. 2d 820 ( D. C. Ci r . 1973) .
13


aut hor i zed and t he di st r i ct cour t may r esor t t o t hemi n ar r i vi ng
at i t s ul t i mat e det er mi nat i on. ) . The cour t may al so pr oceed ex
par t e t o t he ext ent necessar y t o pr ot ect agai nst uni nt ended
di scl osur e of wi t hhel d i nf or mat i on. Long v. I RS, 742 F. 2d 1173,
1182 ( 9t h Ci r . 1984) ; see al so Al exander v. FBI , 192 F. R. D. 37,
40 ( D. D. C. 2000) ( expl ai ni ng t hat t he ci r cumst ances r equi r ed t he
cour t t o r evi ew[ ] t he ent i r e i nvest i gat i ve f i l e i n camer a, as
wel l as conduct [ ] an ex par t e, i n camer a hear i ng wi t h t he
gover nment r egar di ng t he appl i cabi l i t y of t he l aw enf or cement
pr i vi l ege t o [ t he] document s) .
I n t hi s case, t he FBI has submi t t ed as i t s Vaughn i ndex
sever al decl ar at i ons of Davi d M. Har dy, t he FBI Sect i on Chi ef of
t he Recor d/ I nf or mat i on Di ssemi nat i on Sect i on, Recor ds Management
Di vi si on ( t he Har dy Decl ar at i ons) . Because of t he uni que
f act ual ci r cumst ances of t hi s case, descr i bed bel ow, t hose
decl ar at i ons pr oved i nsuf f i ci ent t o enabl e t he Cour t t o make a
det er mi nat i on as t o whet her t he document s wer e pr oper l y
wi t hhel d, and so t he Cour t al so or der ed an i n camer a r evi ew of
t he document s and hel d an ex par t e hear i ng
4
wi t h counsel f or t he
Gover nment r egar di ng t he basi s f or t he asser t ed exempt i ons. The
4
The ex par t e hear i ng was hel d on t he r ecor d and t he
pr oceedi ng was pl aced under seal . Pl ai nt i f f was not i f i ed as t o
when t he hear i ng woul d t ake pl ace, and he submi t t ed pr oposed
quest i ons f or t he Cour t t o consi der aski ng of counsel . Pl ai nt i f f
di d not obj ect t o t he ex par t e nat ur e of t he hear i ng.
14


i nf or mat i on r eveal ed t hr ough bot h t he publ i c di scl osur es and t he
i n camer a r evi ew i s descr i bed bel ow.
A. Publ i c Decl ar at i ons
The FBI submi t t ed a t ot al of f our Har dy Decl ar at i ons t hat
descr i be t he f act ual and l egal bases f or asser t i ng t he r el evant
FOI A exempt i ons. The f i r st decl ar at i on, dat ed November 14, 2012,
was submi t t ed as an exhi bi t t o t he Gover nment s i ni t i al mot i on
f or summar y j udgment , and i t addr esses t he r edact i ons i n t he
DeLoach Memor andum. Ex. t o Def s. Mot . Summ. J . , 1st Har dy
Decl . , ECF No. 10. The second decl ar at i on, dat ed Sept ember 26,
2013, was submi t t ed al ong wi t h a suppl ement al mot i on f or summar y
j udgment i n r esponse t o t he Cour t s or der denyi ng t he i ni t i al
set of cr oss- mot i ons wi t hout pr ej udi ce and r equest i ng f ur t her
expl anat i on f r omt he gover nment . Ex. t o Def s. Suppl . Mot . Summ.
J . , 2nd Har dy Decl . , ECF No. 23. That decl ar at i on agai n
addr esses t he Redact ed Memor andum. The t hi r d decl ar at i on, dat ed
December 16, 2013 ( and i naccur at el y l abel ed t he Second
Decl ar at i on of Davi d M. Har dy) , was submi t t ed as an exhi bi t t o
t he Gover nment s mot i on f or summar y j udgment on t he cl ai ms i n
t he Suppl ement al Compl ai nt . Ex. t o Def s. 2nd Suppl . Mot . Summ.
J . , 3r d Har dy Decl . , ECF No. 35. Al t hough i t ost ensi bl y
addr esses t he bases f or wi t hhol di ng FBI Fi l e No. 62- HQ- 110654,
i t i s al most i dent i cal t o t he second decl ar at i on, whi ch per haps
expl ai ns t he mi sl abel i ng of t he document . Fi nal l y, t he f our t h
15

decl ar at i on, dat ed May 23, 2014, was submi t t ed i n r esponse t o
t he Cour t s or der r equest i ng a suppl ement al Vaughn I ndex t hat
descr i bes each of t he wi t hhel d document s i n FBI Fi l e Number 62-
HQ- 110654 and pr ovi des a par t i cul ar i zed descr i pt i on of how each
document f al l s wi t hi n a st at ut or y exempt i on. Or der , Apr . 23,
2014, ECF No. 48. I t descr i bes mor e pr eci sel y t he bases f or
cat egor i cal l y wi t hhol di ng t he Wi t hhel d Fi l e and i ncl udes an
i ndex of t he wi t hhel d document s. 4t h Har dy Decl . , May 23, 2014.
The Har dy Decl ar at i ons can be mor e conci sel y summar i zed
as f ol l ows:

Date Submitted Subject
Exemptions
Asserted
First Declaration November 14, 2012
The Redact ed
Memor andum
Exempt i on 6
Exempt i on 7( C)
Second Declaration Sept ember 26, 2013
The Redact ed
Memor andum
Exempt i on 6
Exempt i on 7( C)
Third Declaration December 16, 2013
The Redact ed
Memor andumand t he
Wi t hhel d Fi l e
Exempt i on 6
Exempt i on 7( C)
Fourth Declaration May 23, 2014 The Wi t hhel d Fi l e
Exempt i on 6
Exempt i on 7( C)
Exempt i on 7( D)
5

Despi t e t hose numer ous submi ssi ons, however , t he FBI
pr ovi ded t he Cour t wi t h f ew f act ual det ai l s r egar di ng t he bases
f or t he r edact i ons and t he subj ect mat t er of t he Wi t hhel d Fi l e.
I ndeed, t he Gover nment acknowl edged as much dur i ng t he ex par t e
hear i ng, expl ai ni ng t hat t he FBI wor r i ed t hat publ i cl y
5
Except i on 7( D) exempt s f r omdi scl osur e r ecor ds
compi l ed f or l aw enf or cement pur poses t hat coul d r easonabl y be
expect ed t o di scl ose t he i dent i t y of a conf i dent i al sour ce. 5
U. S. C. 552( b) ( 7) ( D) .
16


di scl osi ng even smal l amount s of i nf or mat i on coul d r esul t i n
i mpr oper di scl osur e of pr ot ect ed i nf or mat i on. See Tr . Ex Par t e
Hr g 19. Nonet hel ess, t he FBI di d pr ovi de t he f ol l owi ng r el evant
f act ual det ai l s i n t he f i r st t hr ee Har dy Decl ar at i ons:
The r edact i ons i n t he DeLoach Memor andumcont ai n t he
name of a per son who i s not deceased. 1st Har dy Decl .
18.
That per son was t he subj ect of a backgr ound and
secur i t y i nvest i gat i on conduct ed by t he FBI at t he
r equest of t he Whi t e House t o assi st i n t he
pr ot ect i on of Pr esi dent Lyndon B. J ohnson. 2nd Har dy
Decl . 8.
The i ndi vi dual under i nvest i gat i on was not a
gover nment of f i ci al , but was someone who coul d
r easonabl y be expect ed t o have access t o l ocal es i n
cl ose pr oxi mi t y t o or f r equent ed by t he Pr esi dent .
I d.
The i ndi vi dual under i nvest i gat i on i s not associ at ed
wi t h t he Bl ack case, and t he t wo mat t er s ar e
unr el at ed t opi cs i n t he DeLoach Memor andum. I d. 11.
The Wi t hhel d Fi l e was opened f or t he pur pose of
conduct i ng t he backgr ound i nvest i gat i on on t he
i ndi vi dual whose name i s r edact ed f r omt he DeLoach
Memor andum. I d. 7- 8.
I n t he f our t h Har dy Decl ar at i on, t he FBI descr i bes i n
mor e dept h t he document s cont ai ned i n t he Wi t hhel d Fi l e and t he
pr i vacy i nt er est s pot ent i al l y i mpl i cat ed by di scl osur e. The
agency st i l l r el i es pr i mar i l y on gener i c descr i pt i ons, however ,
expl ai ni ng t he over ar chi ng pol i cy r easons f or not di scl osi ng
i dent i f yi ng i nf or mat i on about var i ous t hi r d par t i es, i ncl udi ng
FBI Speci al Agent s, suppor t per sonnel , gover nment empl oyees, l aw
17

enf or cement of f i cer s, sour ces of i nf or mat i on, and per sons of
i nvest i gat i ve i nt er est . 4t h Har dy Decl . 12- 19. The
decl ar at i on al so emphasi zes t he need t o pr ot ect al l dat a and
i dent i f yi ng i nf or mat i on r egar di ng conf i dent i al sour ces. I d.
20- 32.
Fi nal l y, t he f our t h Har dy Decl ar at i on i ncl udes a f or mal
Vaughn i ndex, whi ch descr i bes each of t he document s cont ai ned i n
t he Wi t hhel d Fi l e. But t he descr i pt i ons i n t he i ndex ar e agai n
gener i c, pr ovi di ng onl y t he dat e of each document , i t s gener al
t ype, and t he over al l nat ur e of t he pr i vacy i nt er est s at st ake.
For exampl e, sever al of t he document s i n t he f i l e ar e descr i bed
as f ol l ows:
I nt er nal Memor andum det ai l i ng i nf or mat i on
pr ovi ded by an i nf or mant concer ni ng
backgr ound i nf or mat i on on a t hi r d- par t y of
i nvest i gat i ve i nt er est i nvol vi ng a Whi t e
House mat t er . Thi r d- par t y i nf or mat i on, i f
di scl osed, coul d r eveal associ at es of t he
t hi r d- par t y and coul d be embar r assi ng t o
l i vi ng i ndi vi dual s and/ or t hei r f ami l i es, as
wel l as an i nvasi on of t hei r per sonal
pr i vacy. Addi t i onal l y, i nf or mat i on pr ovi ded
by a sour ce, i f di scl osed, coul d r eveal t he
sour ce s i dent i t y.
4t h Har dy Decl . Ex. A, Vaughn I ndex, at 1.
Even when consi der ed cumul at i vel y, t he f act s publ i cl y
di scl osed i n t he Har dy Decl ar at i ons ar e i nsuf f i ci ent t o al l ow
t he Cour t t o r each an i nf or med concl usi on as t o whet her t he
document s wer e pr oper l y wi t hhel d. I t i s uncl ear , f or i nst ance,
18

whet her t he r ef er enced i nvest i gat i on was r el at ed t o a
l egi t i mat e l aw enf or cement concer n, as i s r equi r ed f or
Exempt i on 7( C) t o be i mpl i cat ed. See Abdel f at t ah v. U. S. Dep t
of Homel and Sec. , 488 F. 3d 178, 185 ( 3d Ci r . 2007) . Fur t her ,
wi t hout mor e i nf or mat i on speci f i c t o t he ci r cumst ances of t hi s
case, i t i s i mpossi bl e t o assess t he pr eci se nat ur e of t he
par t i cul ar pr i vacy i nt er est s at st ake or t o consi der t he publ i c
i nt er est t hat mi ght be ser ved by di scl osur e. See Davi n, 60 F. 3d
at 1051 ( r ej ect i ng as i nadequat e gener i c expl anat i ons t hat f ai l
t o pr ovi de enough f act ual connect i ve t i ssue t o l i nk t he
document , t he del et i on, t he exempt i on, and t he expl anat i on) .
Ther ef or e, i n or der t o conduct t he r equi si t e bal anci ng t est , t he
Cour t or der ed i n camer a r evi ew of r el evant document s.
B. I n Camer a Submi ssi ons
The Cour t r evi ewed i n camer a bot h an unr edact ed ver si on
of t he DeLoach Memor andumand t he ent i r e cont ent s of t he
Wi t hhel d Fi l e. The unr edact ed DeLoach Memor andumr eveal s t he
i ndi vi dual named i n t he Memor andumt o be Geor ge Hami l t on, an
Amer i can f i l mand t el evi si on act or who was dat i ng Pr esi dent
J ohnson s daught er , Lynda Bi r d J ohnson, at ar ound t he t i me t he
DeLoach Memor andumwas wr i t t en. Thus, when r ead i n f ul l , t he
DeLoach Memor andumi ndi cat es t hat J ust i ce For t as cal l ed FBI
Deput y Di r ect or Car t ha DeLoach t o expr ess appr eci at i on f or t he
i nf or mat i on Hoover had DeLoach pr ovi de For t as concer ni ng t he
19

Geor ge Hami l t on mat t er . Unr edact ed DeLoach Mem. 1. J ust i ce
For t as t hen advi sed DeLoach t hat no f ur t her act i on needed t o
be t aken at t hat t i me, and t hat For t as woul d be i n t ouch wi t h
t he FBI i n t he event f ur t her i nqui r i es shoul d be made. I d.
St andi ng al one, t hose st at ement s ar e qui t e ambi guous, but
t hey seemt o suggest t hat t he Geor ge Hami l t on mat t er was a
subj ect of some concer n t o bot h t he FBI and t o J ust i ce For t as.
I n par t i cul ar , i t seems t hat t he FBI was pr ovi di ng J ust i ce
For t as wi t h i nf or mat i on about Hami l t on, and t hat For t as was
i nst r uct i ng t he FBI on what act i ons i t shoul d t ake. Somewhat
suspi ci ous on t hei r own, t hose f act s t ake on gr eat er
si gni f i cance when r ead i n hi st or i cal cont ext . As di scussed
above, i t i s wel l known ( or , i t was at t he t i me, at l east ) t hat
Geor ge Hami l t on was r omant i cal l y i nvol ved wi t h t he Pr esi dent s
daught er at ar ound t he t i me t he DeLoach Memor andumwas wr i t t en.
See, e. g. , Roxanne Rober t s & Amy Ar get si nger , Lynda J ohnson
Robb and Geor ge Hami l t on: When a Pr esi dent s Daught er Dat ed a
Movi e St ar , The Washi ngt on Post , Feb. 13, 2012,
ht t p: / / www. washi ngt onpost . com/ bl ogs/ r el i abl e- sour ce/ post / l ynda-
j ohnson- r obb- and- geor ge- hami l t on- when- a- pr esi dent s- daught er -
dat ed- a- movi e- st ar / 2012/ 02/ 10/ gI QAuXZO9Q_bl og. ht ml ( l ast vi si t ed
Aug. 15, 2014) ; see al so Tr . Ex Par t e Hr g 5 ( def ense counsel :
[ A] n essent i al poi nt her e i s t hat as t he ent i r e wor l d knows,
Geor ge Hami l t on was dat i ng t he Pr esi dent s ol der daught er . ) . I t
20

i s al so wel l est abl i shed t hat J ust i ce For t as and Pr esi dent
J ohnson had a l ong- t er mcl ose r el at i onshi p. See, e. g. , Laur a
Kal man, Abe For t as 202- 07 ( 1990) ( descr i bi ng t he r el at i onshi p) ;
see al so Tr . Ex Par t e Hr g 9 ( def ense counsel not i ng t hat t hose
f ami l i ar wi t h t he pol i t i cs of t he 30s t hr ough t he 60s know t hat
J ust i ce For t as was a l ongst andi ng f r i end and conf i dant of
Lyndon J ohnson) .
6
I n l i ght of t hose ci r cumst ances, i t does not
r equi r e a t r emendous i nf er ent i al l eap t o concl ude t hat t he FBI
and J ust i ce For t as wer e l i kel y di scussi ng Hami l t on due t o
J ohnson s per sonal ( i . e. , f at her l y) i nt er est i n t he act or .
I ndeed, t he Gover nment acknowl edged as much at t he ex par t e
hear i ng, st at i ng t hat t he FBI and J ust i ce For t as wer e di scussi ng
a par ent al i nt er est on J ohnson s behal f , and t hat i t shoul d
6
For mor e i nf or mat i on on t he J ohnson- For t as
r el at i onshi p, see Br uce Al l en Mur phy, For t as: The Ri se and Rui n
of a Supr eme Cour t J ust i ce ( 1988) . Accor di ng t o Mur phy, a 1968
Ti me magazi ne ar t i cl e cor r ect l y char act er i zed t he r el at i onshi p
as f ol l ows: For t as i s t he t r ue emi nence gr i se of t he J ohnson
Admi ni st r at i on. No one out si de knows accur at el y how many t i mes
Abe For t as has come t hr ough t he back door of t he Whi t e House,
but any f i gur e woul d pr obabl y be t oo l ow. I d. at 234. Mur phy
wr i t es t hat , by 1966, t he r el at i onshi p bet ween t he pr esi dent
and t he advi si ng j ust i ce had been set f or t he r est of J ohnson s
t i me i n of f i ce. Ther e was not hi ng t hat coul d not be pl aced on
t he For t as agenda. I d. at 236; see al so Rober t A. Car o, The
Year s of Lyndon J ohnson: Means of Ascent 368- 72 ( 1990)
( descr i bi ng For t as s r ol e i n J ohnson s el ect i on t o t he U. S.
Senat e i n 1948) ; Nei l D. McFeel ey, Appoi nt ment of J udges: The
J ohnson Pr esi dency 33 ( 1987) ( descr i bi ng For t as as a l ongt i me
conf i dant e of J ohnson s who advi sed t he Pr esi dent on t he
sel ect i on of f eder al j udges unt i l J ohnson l ef t of f i ce, even
whi l e [ For t as was] hi msel f ser vi ng as a j ust i ce of t he Supr eme
Cour t ) .
21


not come as a sur pr i se t hat t he Whi t e House had an i nt er est i n
[ Hami l t on] . Tr . Ex Par t e Hr g 5- 6.
Revi ew of t he Wi t hhel d Fi l e conf i r ms t hat i t document s an
FBI i nvest i gat i on of Geor ge Hami l t on s per sonal backgr ound. The
f ocus of t he i nvest i gat i on seems t o be cer t ai n r umor s t hat Lynda
Bi r d J ohnson, t hr ough her r el at i onshi p wi t h Geor ge Hami l t on, was
r unni ng ar ound wi t h a bunch of homosexual s. Wi t hhel d Fi l e at
Samahon- 1. The document s cont ai ned i n t he f i l e i ndi cat e t hat t he
FBI i nvest i gat ed var i ous l eads i n an ef f or t t o uncover evi dence
t hat Geor ge Hami l t on and/ or hi s f r i ends and f ami l y member s wer e
engaged i n homosexual behavi or . The i nvest i gat i on al so expl or ed
ot her al l egat i ons of conduct consi der ed t o be i l l i ci t , i l l egal ,
or i mmor al at t he t i me. For exampl e, t he FBI r evi ewed Hami l t on s
cr edi t hi st or y, i d. at Samahon- 19, expl or ed r umor s t hat an
i ndi vi dual cl ose t o hi mwas l i t t l e mor e t han a pr ost i t ut e, i d.
at Samahon- 36, and saved newspaper cl i ppi ngs descr i bi ng t he
cont r over sy over Hami l t on s dr af t def er ment st at us, i d. at
Samahon- 84 t o - 86. Over al l , as t he Gover nment acknowl edged
dur i ng t he ex par t e hear i ng, t he cont ent s of t he f i l e r eveal
t hat t he FBI was essent i al l y di ggi ng up di r t on Geor ge
Hami l t on at t he r equest of Pr esi dent J ohnson. See Tr . Ex Par t e
Hr g 12- 13.
J ust i ce For t as i s ment i oned j ust t hr ee t i mes i n t he
Wi t hhel d Fi l e. Two of t hese ment i ons appear i n i nt er nal
22

memor anda f r oman FBI agent t o DeLoach descr i bi ng i nf or mat i on
t he i nvest i gat i on had uncover ed. Bot h memor anda concl ude by
r ecommendi ng t hat J ust i ce For t as be advi sed . . . of t he above
i nf or mat i on, whi ch suggest s t hat J ust i ce For t as pl ayed an
act i ve r ol e i n t he over al l i nvest i gat i on beyond t he conver sat i on
memor i al i zed i n t he DeLoach Memor andum. Wi t hhel d Fi l e at
Samahon- 99, - 101. The t hi r d ment i on of J ust i ce For t as appear s i n
t he DeLoach Memor andumi t sel f , whi ch i s par t of t he Wi t hhel d
Fi l e. I d. at Samahon- 107 t o - 08. The Bl ack case i s not ment i oned
i n t he f i l e out si de of t he DeLoach Memor andum.
IV. DISCUSSION
Based upon t hose f act s, t he Cour t must det er mi ne whet her
t he r edact i on of t he DeLoach Memor andumand t he wi t hhol di ng of
FBI Fi l e No. 62- HQ- 110654 ar e appr opr i at e under any of t he FOI A
exempt i ons. Al t hough t he FBI asser t s si mi l ar j ust i f i cat i ons f or
bot h t he r edact i ons and t he wi t hhol di ng of t he f i l e, t he
anal ysi s of each i ssue i s somewhat di f f er ent . Accor di ngl y, t he
Cour t wi l l consi der t he t wo i ssues i n t ur n, begi nni ng wi t h t he
r edact i on of t he f i f t een- char act er name f r omt he DeLoach
Memor andum.
A. The Redact ed Memor andum
The cl ai ms i n Pl ai nt i f f s Or i gi nal Compl ai nt al l ar i se
f r omt he FBI s deni al of Pl ai nt i f f s r equest f or an unr edact ed
ver si on of t he DeLoach Memor andum. The Gover nment asser t s t hat
23

t he r edact i on of t he name i s pr oper under Exempt i on 6, whi ch
pr ot ect s pr i vacy i nt er est s gener al l y, and under Exempt i on 7( C) ,
whi ch pr ot ect s i nf or mat i on compi l ed f or l aw enf or cement
pur poses. For each of t hose exempt i ons, t he Cour t must det er mi ne
as a t hr eshol d mat t er whet her t he r ecor d at i ssue i s t he t ype of
r ecor d cover ed by t he exempt i on. I f i t i s, t he Cour t t hen
bal ances t he publ i c i nt er est i n di scl osur e agai nst t he pr i vacy
i nt er est s pr ot ect ed by t he exempt i on. U. S. Dep t of Def ense v.
Fed. Labor Rel at i ons Aut h. , 510 U. S. 487, 495 ( 1994) . As i s
expl ai ned i n mor e dept h bel ow, t he i nt er est s t o be wei ghed i n
t hat bal anci ng t est ar e t he same under bot h Exempt i on 6 and
Exempt i on 7( C) , but t he t wo exempt i ons di f f er i n t he magni t ude
of t he publ i c i nt er est t hat i s r equi r ed t o over r i de t he
r espect i ve pr i vacy i nt er est s pr ot ect ed by t he exempt i ons. I d.
at 496 n. 6.
1. Exempt i on 6
Exempt i on 6 exempt s f r omdi scl osur e per sonnel and
medi cal f i l es and si mi l ar f i l es t he di scl osur e of whi ch woul d
const i t ut e a cl ear l y unwar r ant ed i nvasi on of per sonal pr i vacy.
5 U. S. C. 552( b) ( 6) . Thus, at t he t hr eshol d, t he Cour t must
det er mi ne i f t he name r edact ed f r omt he DeLoach Memor andumi s a
per sonnel , medi cal , or si mi l ar f i l e. As i t i s cl ear t hat
t he r edact ed name i s not a per sonnel or medi cal f i l e ( and t he
Gover nment does not cont end ot her wi se) , t he quest i on i s whet her
24

t he name can be consi der ed a si mi l ar f i l e t hat f al l s wi t hi n
t he scope of Exempt i on 6.
The Supr eme Cour t di scussed t he scope of Exempt i on 6 at
l engt h i n U. S. Depar t ment of St at e v. Washi ngt on Post Co. , 456
U. S. 595 ( 1982) . I n t hat deci si on, t he Cour t r ej ect ed t he
ar gument t hat t he phr ase si mi l ar f i l es shoul d be r ead as a
nar r ow addi t i on t o per sonnel and medi cal f i l es, i nst ead
i nt er pr et i ng t he phr ase t o have a br oad meani ng. I d. at 600.
Looki ng t o t he FOI A s l egi sl at i ve hi st or y, t he Cour t expl ai ned
t hat t he pr i mar y l i mi t t o t he scope of t he exempt i on i s t he
phr ase cl ear l y unwar r ant ed i nvasi on of per sonal pr i vacy t hat
i s, t he bal anci ng t est i t sel f not t he r ef er ences t o par t i cul ar
t ypes of f i l es. I d. at 599- 600. Based upon t hat r eadi ng, t he
Cour t concl uded t hat Exempt i on 6 was i nt ended t o cover det ai l ed
Gover nment r ecor ds on an i ndi vi dual whi ch can be i dent i f i ed as
appl yi ng t o t hat i ndi vi dual . I d. at 602. Thus, whenever
di scl osur e of i nf or mat i on whi ch appl i es t o a par t i cul ar
i ndi vi dual i s sought f r omGover nment r ecor ds, cour t s must
pr oceed t o t he bal anci ng t est and consi der whet her r el ease of
t he i nf or mat i on woul d const i t ut e a cl ear l y unwar r ant ed i nvasi on
of t hat per son s pr i vacy. I d. ; see al so U. S. Dep t of St at e v.
Ray, 502 U. S. 164, 173 ( 1991) ( concl udi ng t hat , because t he
wi t hhel d i nf or mat i on unquest i onabl y appl [ i ed] t o . . .
25

par t i cul ar i ndi vi dual s, i t was a si mi l ar f i l e[ ] wi t hi n t he
meani ng of t he exempt i on) .
Based upon t hat pr ecedent , t he r edact ed name i n t he
DeLoach Memor andumconst i t ut es a si mi l ar f i l e wi t hi n t he
meani ng of Exempt i on 6. Al t hough Pl ai nt i f f suggest s t hat t he
name mi ght not be di st i nct i ve enough t o be sai d t o appl y t o a
par t i cul ar i ndi vi dual , he cl ear l y hopes t hat i t wi l l be
i dent i f i abl e t o a par t i cul ar per son, as onl y t hen mi ght i t l end
cr edence t o hi s bl ackmai l t heor y. Mor eover , t he Cour t s i n
camer a r evi ew r eveal s t hat t he r edact i on i s of t he name of a
wel l - known f i gur e i n popul ar cul t ur e. Gi ven t hat f act ,
di scl osur e of t he name r eveal s det ai l s about a speci f i c per son
i t t el l s t he r eader t hat an i dent i f i abl e i ndi vi dual was t he
subj ect of a conver sat i on bet ween J ust i ce For t as and FBI Deput y
Di r ect or Car t ha DeLoach. Thus, because t he FBI has wi t hhel d
i nf or mat i on t hat appl i es t o a par t i cul ar i ndi vi dual , t he
t hr eshol d i nqui r y of Exempt i on 6 i s sat i sf i ed, and t he Cour t
must pr oceed t o t he bal anci ng t est . See Washi ngt on Post Co. , 456
U. S. at 602.
The bal anci ng t est i n Exempt i on 6 i s wei ght ed st r ongl y i n
f avor of di scl osur e, per mi t t i ng an agency t o wi t hhol d f i l es onl y
i f di scl osur e woul d const i t ut e a cl ear l y unwar r ant ed i nvasi on
of per sonal pr i vacy. 5 U. S. C. 552( b) ( 6) . Thus, t o det er mi ne
i f t he r edact i ons ar e pr oper , t he Cour t must : ( 1) i dent i f y t he
26

nat ur e of t he pr i vacy i nt er est s at st ake; ( 2) det er mi ne i f t her e
i s a publ i c i nt er est ser ved by di scl osur e; and ( 3) assess
whet her t he t hr eat t o pr i vacy posed by di scl osur e i s cl ear l y
unwar r ant ed.
a. Pr i vacy I nt er est s
Br oadl y speaki ng, t he pr i vacy i nt er est consi der ed most
r el evant under t he FOI A i s t he i ndi vi dual i nt er est i n avoi di ng
di scl osur e of per sonal mat t er s. U. S. Dep t of J ust i ce v.
Repor t er s Comm. f or Fr eedomof t he Pr ess, 489 U. S. 749, 762
( 1989) . That pr i vacy i nt er est encompasses t he i ndi vi dual s
cont r ol of i nf or mat i on concer ni ng hi s or her per son. I d. at
763. Put anot her way, t he FOI A s pr i vacy- r el at ed exempt i ons seek
t o pr ot ect [ a] n i ndi vi dual s i nt er est i n cont r ol l i ng t he
di ssemi nat i on of i nf or mat i on r egar di ng per sonal mat t er s. U. S.
Dep t of Def ense, 510 U. S. at 500. The Cour t has emphasi zed,
however , t hat [ t ] o say t hat t he concept of per sonal pr i vacy
must encompass t he i ndi vi dual s cont r ol of i nf or mat i on about
hi msel f does not mean i t cannot encompass ot her per sonal pr i vacy
i nt er est s as wel l . Nat l Ar chi ves & Recor ds Admi n. v. Favi sh,
541 U. S. 157, 165 ( 2004) . Over al l , t he pr i vacy i nt er est s
pr ot ect ed under t he FOI A shoul d not be vi ewed i n a l i mi t ed or
cr amped way, i d. , and t hey gener al l y must be consi der ed i n
l i ght of t he par t i cul ar f act s at i ssue, see Davi n v. U. S. Dep t
of J ust i ce, 60 F. 3d 1043, 1060 ( 3d Ci r . 1995) ( opt i ng not t o
27

adopt a per se r ul e r egar di ng an i ndi vi dual s pr i vacy
i nt er est s) .
When consi der i ng whet her di scl osur e of cer t ai n
i nf or mat i on i mpl i cat es pr i vacy i nt er est s, cour t s ar e especi al l y
concer ned wi t h i nf or mat i on t hat coul d be consi der ed sensi t i ve,
der ogat or y, or i nt i mat e. I n par t i cul ar , bot h t he Supr eme Cour t
and t he Thi r d Ci r cui t have been hi ghl y pr ot ect i ve of i nf or mat i on
t hat l i nks a pr i vat e i ndi vi dual t o a cr i mi nal or nat i onal
secur i t y i nvest i gat i on. See Favi sh, 541 U. S. at 166 ( concl udi ng
t hat t her e i s speci al r eason t o pr ot ect i nt i mat e per sonal
dat a connect i ng an i ndi vi dual t o a cr i mi nal i nvest i gat i on) ;
Davi n, 60 F. 3d at 1060 ( r ecogni zi ng an i ndi vi dual s pr i vacy
i nt er est i n not havi ng hi s or her i dent i t y r eveal ed i n t he
cont ext of a cr i mi nal or nat i onal secur i t y i nvest i gat i on) .
Cour t s have al so f ound pr i vacy i nt er est s t o be subst ant i al when
di scl osur e of i nf or mat i on mi ght r esul t i n har assment or
r et al i at i on. For exampl e, i n U. S. Depar t ment of St at e v. Ray,
t he Supr eme Cour t pr ot ect ed f r omdi scl osur e t he names of Hai t i an
nat i onal s who had cooper at ed i n a St at e Depar t ment
i nvest i gat i on, i n par t because di scl osur e of t he names mi ght
have subj ect ed t he i ndi vi dual s t o embar r assment i n t hei r
communi t i es and coul d even have r esul t ed i n pr osecut i on or ot her
r et al i at or y ef f or t s by t he Hai t i an gover nment . 502 U. S. at 176;
see al so Manna v. U. S. Dep t of J ust i ce, 51 F. 3d 1158, 1166 ( 3d
28

Ci r . 1995) ( Rel easi ng t he names of t he peopl e who assi st ed i n
t he appr ehensi on of or gani zed cr i me par t i ci pant s woul d make t he
assi st or s unnecessar i l y vul ner abl e t o possi bl e har assment and
r et al i at i on. ) . I nf or mat i on t r adi t i onal l y vi ewed as hi ghl y
per sonal , such as mar i t al and empl oyment st at uses, soci al
secur i t y number s, or medi cal r ecor ds, has al so gener al l y been
f ound t o i mpl i cat e subst ant i al pr i vacy i nt er est s. See Ray, 502
U. S. at 175; McDonnel l v. Uni t ed St at es, 4 F. 3d 1227, 1253 ( 3d
Ci r . 1993) ( I t i s beyond di sput e t hat an i ndi vi dual has a
subst ant i al pr i vacy i nt er est i n hi s or her medi cal r ecor ds. ) .
But , at l east i n t hi s ci r cui t , t hose gener al pr i nci pl es
ar e not t r eat ed as per se r ul es bar r i ng di scl osur e of par t i cul ar
t ypes of i nf or mat i on. The Thi r d Ci r cui t has r epeat edl y decl i ned
t o hol d t hat , as a gener al mat t er , i nvasi on of cer t ai n pr i vacy
i nt er est s can never be war r ant ed, i nst ead r equi r i ng case-
speci f i c det er mi nat i ons. I n Lame v. U. S. Depar t ment of J ust i ce,
f or exampl e, t he Thi r d Ci r cui t expr essl y decl i ned t o adopt a per
se r ul e t hat t he mer e connect i on of an i ndi vi dual wi t h a
cr i mi nal i nvest i gat i on[ ] const i t ut es an unwar r ant ed i nvasi on of
hi s pr i vacy. 654 F. 2d 917, 923 n. 6 ( 3d Ci r . 1981) ; see al so
Davi n, 60 F. 3d at 1060 ( Whi l e we bel i eve t hat i n t he usual
ci r cumst ance, an i ndi vi dual s pr i vacy i nt er est i n not havi ng hi s
or her i dent i t y r eveal ed i n t he cont ext of a cr i mi nal or
nat i onal secur i t y i nvest i gat i on over r i des t he publ i c benef i t , we
29

wi l l r ef r ai n f r om[ adopt i ng] a per se r ul e. ) . Si mi l ar l y, t he
Supr eme Cour t has emphasi zed t hat di scl osur e of names of pr i vat e
i ndi vi dual s i s not al ways or i nher ent l y a si gni f i cant t hr eat t o
t he pr i vacy of t he i ndi vi dual s. Ray, 502 U. S. at 176 n. 12.
Rat her , whet her di scl osur e const i t ut es a si gni f i cant or a de
mi ni mus t hr eat depends upon t he cont ext i n whi ch t he names ar e
f ound and t he pot ent i al consequences of di scl osur e. I d.
The Gover nment cont ends t hat t he pr i vacy i nt er est s
i mpl i cat ed by t he di scl osur e of t he name i n t he DeLoach
Memor andumar e subst ant i al . I t asser t s t hat di scl osur e of t he
r edact ed name woul d r eveal a pr i vat e ci t i zen s associ at i on wi t h
an FBI backgr ound i nvest i gat i on. Def s. Suppl . Mot . Summ. J . 2-
3. That associ at i on coul d be consi der ed embar r assi ng, t he
Gover nment suggest s, because i t mi ght l ead t o specul at i on of
t he sor t suggest ed by Pl ai nt i f f namel y, t hat t he FBI knew of
some sexual i mpr opr i et y bet ween t he named i ndi vi dual and J ust i ce
For t as. I d. at 2; see al so Tr . Ex Par t e Hr g 4. The Gover nment
f ur t her suggest s t hat di scl osur e of t he name coul d l ead t o t he
concl usi on t hat t he i ndi vi dual was somehow i nvol ved i n what
appear s t o be qui t e i nappr opr i at e conduct by t he FBI and by a
[ si t t i ng Supr eme Cour t ] [ J ] ust i ce. Tr . Ex Par t e Hr g 4. Put
mor e si mpl y, t he Gover nment asser t s t hat di scl osur e woul d r eveal
a pr i vat e ci t i zen s i nvol vement i n a sensi t i ve mat t er t hat
30

i ncl uded an FBI backgr ound i nvest i gat i on, and t hus t hat t her e i s
a subst ant i al pr i vacy i nt er est at st ake.
When t he DeLoach Memor andumi s r ead i n i t s unr edact ed
f or m, however , t he pot ent i al embar r assment descr i bed by t he
Gover nment seems hi ghl y specul at i ve, at best . The DeLoach
Memor andumi t sel f makes no r ef er ence t o an FBI backgr ound
i nvest i gat i on. Wi t hout t he addi t i onal i nf or mat i on suppl i ed by
t he FBI , a r eader of t he DeLoach Memor andumwoul d be awar e onl y
t hat DeLoach and J ust i ce For t as had di scussed i nf or mat i on about
Geor ge Hami l t on, not t hat t he FBI had conduct ed a backgr ound
i nvest i gat i on of hi m. Fur t her , even i f i t wer e appar ent f r omt he
Memor andumt hat t he FBI had i nvest i gat ed Hami l t on, t her e i s no
suggest i on t hat t he i nvest i gat i on was t he sor t of cr i mi nal or
nat i onal secur i t y i nvest i gat i on l i kel y t o i mpl i cat e subst ant i al
pr i vacy i nt er est s. I ndeed, t he Gover nment admi t t ed at t he ex
par t e hear i ng t hat t he i nvest i gat i on of Geor ge Hami l t on was not
connect ed t o any cr i mi nal i nvest i gat i on or secur i t y concer n. I d.
at 8 ( Cour t : [ W] as Geor ge Hami l t on r eal l y t he subj ect of a
cr i mi nal or a nat i onal secur i t y i nvest i gat i on? Mr . Ber nst ei n:
No, not t o my knowl edge. ) .
7

7
Thi s case i s t her ef or e unl i ke Fi t zgi bbon v. CI A, a
D. C. Ci r cui t case upon whi ch t he Gover nment heavi l y r el i es. I n
t hat case, t he cour t of appeal s r ever sed t he di st r i ct cour t s
concl usi on t hat t he bar e f act t hat an i ndi vi dual s name appear s
i n an FBI r epor t . . . i s not suf f i ci ent l y i nj ur i ous of hi s
pr i vacy t o over come [ t he] FOI A s pr esumpt i on i n f avor of
31


Nor does t he DeLoach Memor andumsuggest t hat Hami l t on
hi msel f was i nvol ved i n any i l l egal or unet hi cal conduct or
ot her i mpr opr i et y. Al t hough Pl ai nt i f f specul at es t hat t he
r edact ed name r ef er s t o an i ndi vi dual wi t h whomJ ust i ce For t as
may have had an i mpr oper , possi bl y sexual , r el at i onshi p,
di scl osur e of t he act ual name, i n f act , di spel s t hat suspi ci on.
8

As t he Gover nment st at ed at t he ex par t e hear i ng, t he DeLoach
Memor andumr eveal s possi bl y i nappr opr i at e conduct by t he FBI and
by J ust i ce For t as, but not by Geor ge Hami l t on, and a r eader of
t he unr edact ed DeLoach Memor andumdoes not l ear n a l ot about
[ t he Hami l t on mat t er ] f r omt hat [ document ] al one. I d. at 16.
Thus, di scl osur e of t he r edact ed name det ached f r omt he r est
of t he Wi t hhel d Fi l e does not di r ect l y i mpl i cat e Geor ge
Hami l t on i n any unet hi cal , sensi t i ve, or embar r assi ng conduct ;
at most , Hami l t on i s mer el y a condui t t hr ough whi ch t o vi ew
di scl osur e. 911 F. 2d 755, 767 ( D. C. Ci r . 1990) . The cour t of
appeal s r easoned t hat t he ment i on of an i ndi vi dual s name i n a
l aw enf or cement f i l e especi al l y when det ached f r omany ot her
i nf or mat i on wi l l engender comment and specul at i on and car r i es
a st i gmat i zi ng connot at i on. I d. The cour t al so emphasi zed an
i ndi vi dual s st r ong i nt er est . . . i n not bei ng associ at ed
unwar r ant edl y wi t h al l eged cr i mi nal act i vi t y. I d. Her e, t her e
i s no i ndi cat i on t hat t he DeLoach Memor andumi s connect ed t o any
al l eged cr i mi nal act i vi t y. Ther ef or e, i n addi t i on t o bei ng
non- bi ndi ng, t he Fi t zgi bbon deci si on i s di st i ngui shabl e f r om
t hi s case.
8
I t seems hi ghl y unl i kel y i f not pr epost er ous t hat
DeLoach was di scussi ng Geor ge Hami l t on wi t h J ust i ce For t as not
because of Hami l t on s r el at i onshi p wi t h Lynda Bi r d J ohnson, but
because of Hami l t on s r el at i onshi p wi t h For t as.
32


i mpr oper conduct by t he FBI , J ust i ce For t as, and, pot ent i al l y,
Pr esi dent J ohnson.
I n addi t i on t o t he i ndi r ect nat ur e of any negat i ve
associ at i ons r eveal ed by di scl osur e, t her e ar e sever al ot her
ci r cumst ances pr esent i n t hi s case t hat f ur t her di mi ni sh t he
si gni f i cance of t he pr i vacy i nt er est s at st ake. Fi r st , a
si gni f i cant amount of t i me has passed si nce t he event s
document ed i n t he DeLoach Memor andumoccur r ed. Al t hough i t i s
cer t ai nl y t r ue t hat t he [ p] assage of t i me al one i s not enough
t o er ase an i ndi vi dual s pr i vacy i nt er est s, t hose i nt er est s
may become di l ut ed over t i me. Manna, 51 F. 3d at 1166. For t hat
r eason, cour t s shoul d det er mi ne t he i mpact of t he passage of
t i me by assessi ng whet her t he pot ent i al f or embar r assment and
har assment cont i nues t o endur e. McDonnel l , 4 F. 3d at 1256.
Her e, al most f i f t y year s have passed si nce t he DeLoach
Memor andumwas wr i t t en. I n t hat i nt er veni ng t i me, Geor ge
Hami l t on and Lynda Bi r d J ohnson have moved on wi t h t hei r pr i vat e
l i ves and mar r i ed ot her peopl e, and DeLoach, For t as, and
Pr esi dent J ohnson have al l passed away. Fur t her mor e, count l ess
account s have been publ i shed about t he i nner wor ki ngs of
Hoover s FBI , many of whi ch di scuss t he agency s wi l l i ngness t o
i nvest i gat e hi gh- pr of i l e i ndi vi dual s f or unsubst ant i at ed,
i mpr oper , or per sonal r easons unconnect ed t o t he mi ssi on of t he
33

FBI .
9
The mer e pr esence of Hami l t on s name i n an FBI document i s
t her ef or e unl i kel y st andi ng al one t o engender specul at i on
t hat he was suspect ed of any cr i mi nal conduct . I n l i ght of al l
of t hose ci r cumst ances, i t i s di f f i cul t t o see how i t woul d be
par t i cul ar l y embar r assi ng t o Geor ge Hami l t on f or t he FBI t o
di scl ose t hat he was t he subj ect of a conver sat i on bet ween
J ust i ce For t as and Car t ha DeLoach back i n 1966.
Second, t he speci f i c i nf or mat i on pr ot ect ed by
nondi scl osur e i s al r eady l ar gel y publ i cl y avai l abl e. I n 1995,
Car t ha DeLoach publ i shed a memoi r i n whi ch he descr i bes i n
det ai l t he FBI s i nvest i gat i on of Geor ge Hami l t on and For t as s
r ol e i n t hat i nvest i gat i on. See Car t ha D. DeLoach, Hoover s FBI :
The I nsi de St or y by Hoover s Tr ust ed Li eut enant ( 1995) . DeLoach
wr i t es:
When Lynda Bi r d became i nvol ved wi t h act or
Geor ge Hami l t on, J ohnson became an anxi ous
f at her . To hi m, Hami l t on seemed no mor e t han
a sl i ck oppor t uni st , an upst ar t t aki ng
advant age of hi s movi e f ame t o char m t he
daught er of a r i ch and power f ul man.
Washi ngt on was al i ve wi t h st or i es about t he
coupl e, and t he pr esi dent knew he had a
pr obl em and one of t he ways he sol ved
pr obl ems was t o cal l i n t he FBI .
9
See, e. g. , Mat t hew Ceci l , Hoover s FBI and t he Four t h
Est at e: The Campai gn t o Cont r ol t he Pr ess and t he Bur eau s I mage
( 2014) ; Dougl as M. Char l es, The FBI s Obscene Fi l e: J . Edgar
Hoover and t he Bur eau s Cr usade Agai nst Smut ( 2012) ; Ronal d
Kessl er , The Bur eau: The Secr et Hi st or y of t he FBI ( 2003) .
34


I d. at 392- 93. Accor di ng t o DeLoach, Pr esi dent J ohnson cal l ed
DeLoach and t ol d hi mt o go up and see Abe For t as. I d. at 393.
J ohnson t asked t he t wo of t hemwi t h com[ i ng] up wi t h a way t o
st op Geor ge Hami l t on f r omseei ng Lynda Bi r d. I d. DeLoach
expl ai ns t hat he was sur pr i sed by t he r equest , as For t as was
al r eady a Supr eme Cour t J ust i ce at t he t i me, but appar ent l y, as
f ar as t he pr esi dent was concer ned, For t as s seat on t he Supr eme
Cour t di dn t pr ecl ude hi mf r omdoi ng a l i t t l e moonl i ght i ng f or
t he pr esi dent . I d. Toget her , For t as and Del oach supposedl y
ar r anged f or t he FBI t o r un a ver y di scr eet check on Hami l t on
t o see i f anyt hi ng t ur ned up. I d. DeLoach descr i bes how t he
f i shi ng expedi t i on di d not r eveal any i ncr i mi nat i ng
i nf or mat i on, but t hat t he coupl e soon par t ed ways of t hei r own
accor d. I d.
I t i s t r ue t hat , as t he Gover nment ar gued at t he ex par t e
hear i ng, t he f act t hat an event i s not whol l y pr i vat e does not
mean t hat an i ndi vi dual has no i nt er est i n l i mi t i ng di scl osur e
or di ssemi nat i on of t he i nf or mat i on. Repor t er s Comm. , 489 U. S.
at 770 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ; see al so Sheet Met al
Wor ker s I nt l Ass n, Local Uni on No. 19 v. U. S. Dep t of
Vet er ans Af f ai r s, 135 F. 3d 891, 905 ( 3d Ci r . 1998) ( [ W] e f i nd
unconvi nci ng t he uni on s ar gument t hat empl oyees have wai ved
t hei r pr i vacy r i ght s because t hei r addr esses ar e avai l abl e f r om
ot her publ i c sour ces and ar e post ed publ i cl y at t he j ob si t e. ) .
35

I n t hi s day and age, t her e ar e f ew f act s t hat ar e not at one
t i me or anot her di vul ged t o anot her . Repor t er s Comm. , 489 U. S.
at 763. I n l i ght of t hat r eal i t y, t he Supr eme Cour t has made
cl ear t hat pr i or di scl osur e of a pi ece of i nf or mat i on does not
aut omat i cal l y t er mi nat e t he subj ect i ndi vi dual s pr i vacy
i nt er est i n nondi scl osur e. I d. at 763- 64.
But t o say t hat pr i or di scl osur e of i nf or mat i on does not
aut omat i cal l y t er mi nat e pr i vacy i nt er est s i s not t o suggest t hat
pr i or di scl osur e i s i r r el evant t o t he i nqui r y. On t he cont r ar y,
t he ext ent t o whi ch a f act i s al r eady publ i c af f ect s t he
si gni f i cance of t he pr i vacy r i ght s at st ake. See i d. at 763
( r ecogni zi ng t hat t he ext ent of t he pr ot ect i on accor ded a
pr i vacy r i ght at common l aw r est ed i n par t on t he degr ee of
di ssemi nat i on of t he al l egedl y pr i vat e f act and t he ext ent t o
whi ch t he passage of t i me r ender ed i t pr i vat e) . Si mpl y put , one
cannot be sai d t o have di scl osed a f act whi ch i s al r eady
known. As t he Thi r d Ci r cui t expl ai ned i n Lame, evi dence t hat
i nf or mat i on has pr evi ousl y been r el eased publ i cl y may i ndi cat e
t hat t he i ndi vi dual s pr i vacy i nt er est i s subst ant i al l y l ess
compel l i ng t han mi ght ot her wi se be assumed. 654 F. 2d at 923.
The Supr eme Cour t has made si mi l ar st at ement s, expl ai ni ng i n
Repor t er s Commi t t ee t hat i nf or mat i on can be consi der ed pr i vat e
onl y i f i t i s not f r eel y avai l abl e t o t he publ i c. 489 U. S. at
764.
36

I n t hi s case, t he speci f i c i nf or mat i on t hat t he FBI seeks
t o pr ot ect namel y, t hat J ust i ce For t as and t he FBI
col l abor at ed t o i nvest i gat e Geor ge Hami l t on has been publ i shed
i n a book t hat i s publ i cl y avai l abl e. I n f act , Pl ai nt i f f hi msel f
ci t es t o DeLoach s memoi r i n hi s submi ssi ons t o t he Cour t ,
suggest i ng t hat he may be al r eady awar e of t he i nf or mat i on.
Al t hough DeLoach s memoi r may not have been wi del y r ead, i t i s
r eadi l y avai l abl e vi a l i br ar i es and bookst or es t o any member of
t he publ i c ( i ndeed, t he Cour t obt ai ned a copy wi t hout any
di f f i cul t y f r oma l ocal l i br ar y) . Gi ven t hat t he r el evant
i nqui r y i s whet her t he i nf or mat i on i s f r eel y avai l abl e not
whet her i t i s wi del y known t he i nf or mat i on r edact ed i n t he
DeLoach Memor andumcannot be sai d t o st i l l be t r ul y pr i vat e.
Even mor e si gni f i cant l y, Geor ge Hami l t on hi msel f has
wr i t t en publ i cl y about some of t he event s at i ssue i n t hi s case.
Hami l t on wr ot e i n hi s own memoi r , publ i shed i n 2008, t hat , [ a] s
t he put at i ve LBJ son- i n- l aw, [ he] was subj ect t o i ncr edi bl e
scr ut i ny. Geor ge Hami l t on & Wi l l i amSt adi em, Don t Mi nd I f I Do
198 ( 2008) . That scr ut i ny i ncl uded a f ocus by t he J ohnson
admi ni st r at i on on al l egat i ons of Hami l t on s connect i ons t o
homosexual act i vi t y. Hami l t on wr i t es t hat hi s br ot her , Bi l l , was
gay, and t hat gay was t he di r t i est wor d anyone coul d have
used i n and ar ound t he J ohnson Whi t e House. I d. at 201.
Accor di ng t o Hami l t on, [ a] s f ar as homosexual scandal s wer e
37

concer ned, t he l egal doct r i ne of f r ui t of t he poi soned t r ee
of t en appl i ed, f ai r or not , meani ng t hat , [ i ] f Bi l l wer e
out ed, [ Hami l t on] woul d be i nevi t abl y t ar r ed wi t h t he
homosexual l abel as wel l . I d. at 202. Hami l t on says t hat he
di dn t want [ hi s] f ami l y dr agged i nt o t he mud, and t hat hi s
r el at i onshi p wi t h Lynda Bi r d J ohnson ended shor t l y af t er
Hami l t on became awar e of t hat scr ut i ny. I d.
Al t hough Hami l t on never ment i ons an FBI i nvest i gat i on, i t
i s cl ear f r omhi s memoi r t hat he knew t hat hi s sexual i t y and
ot her per sonal i nf or mat i on wer e under scr ut i ny by t he Whi t e
House. Mor e i mpor t ant l y, he was wi l l i ng t o di scl ose t hose f act s
t o t he gener al publ i c i n hi s own memoi r , suggest i ng t hat at
l east at t hi s poi nt i n t i me he does not r et ai n an i nt er est i n
avoi di ng di scl osur e of t he f act t hat t he J ohnson Admi ni st r at i on
pur sued al l egat i ons of homosexual i t y i n hi s f ami l y. Repor t er s
Comm. , 489 U. S. at 762.
Under t he ci r cumst ances of t hi s case, t he pr i vacy
i nt er est s i mpl i cat ed by di scl osur e of t he r edact ed name ar e
t her ef or e subst ant i al l y di mi ni shed. Al t hough Geor ge Hami l t on
cer t ai nl y has some i nt er est i n cont r ol l i ng t he di ssemi nat i on
of t he f act t hat he was t he subj ect of a conver sat i on bet ween
t he FBI and J ust i ce For t as, see U. S. Dep t of Def ense, 510 U. S.
at 500, t hat i nf or mat i on i s not par t i cul ar l y sensi t i ve or
embar r assi ng, i nvol ves event s t hat occur r ed l ong ago, and has
38

been r eveal ed pr evi ousl y i n a book t hat i s avai l abl e t o t he
gener al publ i c. Fur t her mor e, Hami l t on hi msel f has di spl ayed a
wi l l i ngness t o publ i cl y di scuss t he J ohnson Admi ni st r at i on s
scr ut i ny of hi s f ami l y s pr i vat e l i ves, i ncl udi ng al l egat i ons of
homosexual i t y. Accor di ngl y, Hami l t on s i nt er est i n avoi di ng
di scl osur e of t he speci f i c i nf or mat i on i n t he DeLoach Memor andum
( whi ch, as di scussed above, t el l s t he r eader ver y l i t t l e about
Hami l t on hi msel f ) i s mi ni mal , at best .
b. Publ i c I nt er est
Havi ng det er mi ned t he nat ur e of t he pr i vacy i nt er est s at
st ake, t he Cour t now t ur ns t o t he quest i on of whet her t her e i s a
publ i c i nt er est ser ved by di scl osur e. The Supr eme Cour t has made
cl ear t hat t he onl y r el evant publ i c i nt er est i n di scl osur e
t hat a cour t can consi der i s t he ext ent t o whi ch di scl osur e
woul d ser ve t he cor e pur pose of t he FOI A, whi ch i s
cont r i but [ i ng] si gni f i cant l y t o publ i c under st andi ng of t he
oper at i ons or act i vi t i es of t he gover nment . U. S. Dep t of
Def ense, 510 U. S. at 495 ( quot i ng Repor t er s Comm. , 489 U. S. at
775) ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) . As Repor t er s Commi t t ee expl ai ns,
t he FOI A r ef l ect s t he l ongst andi ng Amer i can pr i nci pl e t hat a
democr acy cannot f unct i on unl ess t he peopl e ar e per mi t t ed t o
know what t hei r gover nment i s up t o. 489 U. S. at 773 ( emphasi s
i n or i gi nal ) . The st at ut e s basi c pur pose i s t o uphol d t hat
pr i nci pl e by r equi r i ng agency di scl osur e. I d. Di scl osur e of
39

[ o] f f i ci al i nf or mat i on t hat sheds l i ght on an agency s
per f or mance of i t s st at ut or y dut i es f al l s squar el y wi t hi n t hat
st at ut or y pur pose, but , gener al l y speaki ng, di scl osur e of
i nf or mat i on about pr i vat e ci t i zens t hat i s accumul at ed i n
var i ous gover nment al f i l es does not . I d. Cour t s t her ef or e must
det er mi ne whet her an i nvasi on of per sonal pr i vacy i s war r ant ed
by consi der i ng t he degr ee t o whi ch di scl osur e woul d shed l i ght
on t he gover nment s act i vi t i es, not on t he act i vi t i es of pr i vat e
ci t i zens, even i f t he act i vi t i es of pr i vat e ci t i zens coul d
l egi t i mat el y be sai d t o at t r act publ i c i nt er est . I d. at 774.
As numer ous cour t s have r ecogni zed, t her e i s a
subst ant i al publ i c i nt er est i n i nf or mat i on t hat exposes i mpr oper
conduct by a gover nment agency. I n Davi n, f or exampl e, t he Thi r d
Ci r cui t agr eed t hat t her e i s a st r ong publ i c i nt er est i n
i l l umi nat i ng t he gover nment s oper at i ons and exposi ng possi bl e
mi sconduct wi t h r egar d t o [ an] FBI [ ] i nvest i gat i on. 60 F. 3d at
1059; cf . Pr udent i al Locat i ons LLC v. U. S. Dep t of Housi ng &
Ur ban Dev. , 739 F. 3d 424, 433 ( 9t h Ci r . 2013) ( expl ai ni ng t hat
r eveal i ng t he i dent i t y of a pr i vat e i ndi vi dual was unwar r ant ed
under t he ci r cumst ances, i n par t because t her e was no evi dence
t hat t he agency per f or med t he i nvest i gat i ons i mpr oper l y or
i nef f i ci ent l y) . Si mi l ar l y, because of t he subst ant i al publ i c
i nt er est i n sheddi ng l i ght on i mpr oper Agency conduct , t he
Four t h Ci r cui t has per mi t t ed t he di scl osur e of names of
40

i ndi vi dual s i nvol ved i n a r aci al pr of i l i ng i nvest i gat i on. Casa
de Mar yl and, I nc. v. U. S. Dep t of Homel and Sec. , 409 F. App x
697, 700 ( 4t h Ci r . 2011) . As t he Di st r i ct Cour t f or t he Di st r i ct
of Col umbi a put i t , when hi ndsi ght and hi st or y i ndi cat e t hat
an agency s j ust i f i cat i on f or an i nvest i gat i on was at best
pr ecar i ous i n nat ur e, t he publ i c has a hei ght en[ ed] i nt er est
i n knowi ng why and agai nst whomt he FBI under t ook t he
i nvest i gat i ons and t act i cs t hat i t di d. Campbel l v. U. S. Dep t
of J ust i ce, 193 F. Supp. 2d 29, 41 ( D. D. C. 2001) .
The Supr eme Cour t has al so st at ed t hat t he publ i c has an
i nt er est i n i nf or mat i on showi ng t hat r esponsi bl e of f i ci al s
act ed negl i gent l y or ot her wi se i mpr oper l y i n t he per f or mance of
t hei r dut i es. Favi sh, 541 U. S. at 174. The Cour t emphasi zed,
however , t hat i t i s i nsuf f i ci ent f or a FOI A r equest er t o si mpl y
asser t t hat publ i c i nt er est wi t hout any i ndi cat i on t hat t he
agency act ual l y act ed i mpr oper l y. Rat her , i n or der t o avoi d
t r ansf or m[ i ng] Exempt i on 7( C) i nt o not hi ng mor e t han a r ul e of
pl eadi ng, t he Supr eme Cour t st at ed t hat a r equest er asser t i ng a
publ i c i nt er est i n exposi ng agency mi sconduct i s r equi r ed t o
pr oduce evi dence t hat woul d war r ant a bel i ef by a r easonabl e
per son t hat t he al l eged Gover nment i mpr opr i et y mi ght have
occur r ed. I d.
The Gover nment cont ends i n i t s mot i ons f or summar y
j udgment t hat di scl osur e of t he r edact ed name woul d not f ur t her
41

t he publ i c s i nt er est i n sheddi ng l i ght on t he oper at i ons and
act i vi t i es of t he gover nment . Mem. Supp. Def s. Suppl . Mot .
Summ. J . 2. I t f ocuses on t he par t i cul ar t heor y under l yi ng
Pl ai nt i f f s asser t ed publ i c i nt er est i n di scl osur e, whi ch i s
t hat di scl osur e of t he name coul d r eveal t hat t he FBI was
essent i al l y bl ackmai l i ng J ust i ce For t as i nt o pr ovi di ng
i nf or mat i on about t he Bl ack case. The Gover nment cont ends t hat
Pl ai nt i f f s bl ackmai l t heor y i s er r oneous, and i t i mpl i es t hat ,
as a r esul t , di scl osur e of t he r edact ed name wi l l not r eveal
anyt hi ng about t he oper at i ons of t he FBI . I d. at 4.
Havi ng had t he benef i t of t he i n camer a r evi ew, t he Cour t
agr ees wi t h t he Gover nment t hat t he r edact ed name and t he
Supr eme Cour t s handl i ng of t he Bl ack case wer e l i kel y t wo
unr el at ed subj ect s t hat For t as and DeLoach happened t o di scuss
i n t he same conver sat i on. Pl ai nt i f f s t heor y hi nges on t he
assumpt i on t hat t he r edact ed name demot es an i ndi vi dual wi t h
whomJ ust i ce For t as had some sor t of i mpr oper r el at i onshi p, as
onl y t hen woul d t he DeLoach Memor andumseemt o r ef l ect an ef f or t
t o i nt i mi dat e J ust i ce For t as i nt o t he unet hi cal di scl osur e of
i nf or mat i on about t he Bl ack case. As di scussed above, t he act ual
name di spel s t hat assumpt i on, as i t seems exceedi ngl y unl i kel y
t hat J ust i ce For t as and Geor ge Hami l t on had any r el at i onshi p,
much l ess an i mpr oper one. Rat her , when t he unr edact ed DeLoach
Memor andumi s r ead i n cont ext wi t h t he Wi t hhel d Fi l e, i t i s
42

appar ent t hat J ust i ce For t as and DeLoach wer e di scussi ng
Hami l t on as par t of t he FBI s i nvest i gat i on of Hami l t on, and
t hat t he Bl ack case was si mpl y an addi t i onal t opi c t hey happened
t o di scuss at t he same t i me. Thus, Pl ai nt i f f s bl ackmai l t heor y
i s al most cer t ai nl y i ncor r ect .
I t does not f ol l ow, however , t hat , because t he pr emi se
upon whi ch t he FOI A r equest was made i s i ncor r ect , di scl osur e of
t he r edact ed name ser ves no publ i c i nt er est . As t he Gover nment
acknowl edged dur i ng t he ex par t e hear i ng, t he unr edact ed DeLoach
Memor andumi mpl i cat es . . . i nappr opr i at e conduct . . .
possi bl y by t he FBI , possi bl y by J ust i ce For t as, possi bl y by
bot h. Tr . Ex Par t e Hr g 15- 16. I n par t i cul ar , i t r eveal s t hat
seni or FBI of f i ci al s and a si t t i ng Supr eme Cour t J ust i ce wer e
i nvol ved i n t he i nvest i gat i on of t he pr i vat e l i f e of an
i ndi vi dual based upon t he per sonal concer n of t he Pr esi dent . As
t he Gover nment put i t , such a si t uat i on i s hi ghl y
unconvent i onal , i d. at 10, and i t suggest s a pot ent i al l y
i l l egal use of execut i ve power , as wel l as an unusual ( and
l i kel y i mpr oper ) col l abor at i on bet ween t wo br anches of
gover nment . Di scl osur e of t he r edact ed name t her ef or e ser ves t he
publ i c i nt er est , as i t sheds l i ght on t he manner i n whi ch t he
FBI per f or med i t s dut i es and subst ant i al l y cont r i but es t o t he
publ i c s under st andi ng of how t he gover nment f unct i oned at t he
t i me. See Repor t er s Comm. , 489 U. S. at 773; Davi n, 60 F. 3d at
43

1059. I n f act , t he Gover nment essent i al l y admi t t ed as much at
t he ex par t e hear i ng, st at i ng: [ I ] t i s har d f or me t o st and
her e and deny t hat t her e i s a publ i c i nt er est i n such
i nf or mat i on gener al l y. Tr . Ex Par t e Hr g 12; see al so i d. ( So,
yes, at some l evel , Your Honor , I woul d not di sput e t hat . ) .
10

Fur t her mor e, al t hough Pl ai nt i f f s par t i cul ar bl ackmai l
t heor y i s not subst ant i at ed by di scl osur e, Pl ai nt i f f i dent i f i es
sever al f eat ur es of t he publ i cl y avai l abl e r ecor d t hat ar e
i ndi cat i ve of t he mi sconduct ul t i mat el y r eveal ed by di scl osur e.
For i nst ance, Pl ai nt i f f descr i bes how t he Memor andumi t sel f
not es t hat i t i s an i nf or mal t ype memor andumand t he cont ent s
shoul d be mai nt ai ned i n st r i ct conf i dence. Pl . s Renewed Mot .
Summ. J . 7 ( quot i ng DeLoach Mem. 2) . Pl ai nt i f f cont ends t hat
[ s] uch a st at ement suggest s wr ongdoi ng or ser i ous i mpr opr i et y
on DeLoach s par t . I d. Pl ai nt i f f al so not es t hat , al t hough t he
FBI asser t s t hat t he r edact ed name was t he subj ect of a
backgr ound i nvest i gat i on or der ed by t he Whi t e House, t he agency
f ai l s t o expl ai n why a secur i t y backgr ound i nvest i gat i on
10
The Cour t appr eci at es and t hanks Gover nment counsel
f or t he t hor ough and f ai r pr esent at i on of t he f act s suppor t i ng
t he Gover nment s posi t i on. Mr . Ber nst ei n s advocacy was i n t he
hi ghest t r adi t i on of t he U. S. Depar t ment of J ust i ce. See Ber ger
v. Uni t ed St at es, 295 U. S. 78, 88 ( 1935) ( The Uni t ed St at es
At t or ney i s t he r epr esent at i ve not of an or di nar y par t y t o a
cont r over sy, but of a sover ei gnt y whose obl i gat i on t o gover n
i mpar t i al l y i s as compel l i ng as i t s obl i gat i on t o gover n at al l ;
and whose i nt er est . . . i s not t hat i t shal l wi n a case, but
t hat j ust i ce shal l be done. ) .
44


or der ed by t he Whi t e House woul d i nvol ve t he i mpr oper
i nt er act i on memor i al i zed i n t he DeLoach Memor andum. I d. at 9.
Pl ai nt i f f cont i nues: Common sense woul d suggest t hat t he FBI
shoul d have, i f anyt hi ng, been sol i ci t i ng i nf or mat i on on t he
subj ect f r omJ ust i ce For t as, r at her t han f ur ni shi ng hi mwi t h
sensi t i ve i nf or mat i on about t he r edact ed mat t er . I d. Fi nal l y,
Pl ai nt i f f asser t s t hat t he Wi t hhel d Fi l e i s l ocat ed i n FBI mai n
f i l e 62, whi ch i s denomi nat ed as mi scel l aneous and i ncl udes
document s r el at i ng t o i nvest i gat i ons i nt o unpopul ar pol i t i cal
gr oups. I d. at 11. Pl ai nt i f f quest i ons why, i f t he Wi t hhel d
Fi l e i s a r out i ne backgr ound i nvest i gat i ve f i l e l i ke t he
Gover nment suggest s, t he f i l e was not l ocat ed i n one of t he FBI
mai n f i l es desi gnat ed f or such i nvest i gat i ons, such as t he f i l es
f or admi ni st r at i ve mat t er s, f or speci al i nqui r i es f or t he Whi t e
House, or f or t he secur i t y cl ear ance i nvest i gat i on pr ogr am. I d.
As t he i n camer a r evi ew r eveal s, al l of t hose f eat ur es of
t he DeLoach Memor andumar e r ef l ect i ve of t he hi ghl y
unconvent i onal nat ur e of t he i nvest i gat i on at i ssue. By
poi nt i ng out t hose f eat ur es, and by pr esent i ng t he Cour t wi t h
subst ant i al ext er nal evi dence of si mi l ar i mpr oper conduct by
DeLoach and t he Hoover FBI , Pl ai nt i f f has demonst r at ed t hat t he
al l egat i on of i mpr oper conduct by t he FBI i s mor e t han a bar e
suspi ci on. See Favi sh, 541 U. S. at 174 ( hol di ng t hat , when t he
publ i c i nt er est bei ng asser t ed i s t o show t hat r esponsi bl e
45

of f i ci al s act ed negl i gent l y or ot her wi se i mpr oper l y i n t he
per f or mance of t hei r dut i es, t he r equest er must est abl i sh mor e
t han a bar e suspi ci on i n or der t o obt ai n di scl osur e) . I ndeed,
despi t e t he f act ual i mbal ance i nher ent i n FOI A l i t i gat i on
gener al l y, Pl ai nt i f f has succeeded her e i n pr oduc[ i ng] evi dence
t hat woul d war r ant a bel i ef by a r easonabl e per son t hat t he
al l eged Gover nment i mpr opr i et y mi ght have occur r ed. I d. ; see
al so Manna, 51 F. 3d at 1166 ( concl udi ng t hat some evi dence of
t he al l eged mi sconduct i s needed t o j ust i f y i nvadi ng t he
demonst r abl e pr i vacy i nt er est s i nvol ved) . He has t her ef or e
sat i sf i ed hi s bur den of demonst r at i ng a publ i c i nt er est i n
di scl osur e.
I n sum, Pl ai nt i f f has pr oduced evi dence of pot ent i al l y
i mpr oper conduct by t he FBI ; t he i n camer a r evi ew has conf i r med
t hat di scl osur e exposes l i kel y i l l egal or unet hi cal conduct by
at a mi ni mumDeLoach and J ust i ce For t as; and t he Gover nment has
conceded t hat t her e i s a publ i c i nt er est ser ved by di scl osur e.
Ther ef or e, t he Cour t concl udes t hat di scl osur e ser ves a st r ong
publ i c i nt er est because i t i l l umi nat [ es] t he gover nment s
oper at i ons and expos[ es] possi bl e mi sconduct wi t h r egar d . . .
t o [ an] FBI [ ] i nvest i gat i on t wo f unct i ons t hat go t o t he cor e
pur pose of t he FOI A. See Davi n, 60 F. 3d at 1059; see al so U. S.
Dep t of Def ense, 510 U. S. at 495.
46

c. Bal anci ng t he I nt er est s
The f i nal st ep i n t he i nqui r y i s t o det er mi ne, based on
t he par t i cul ar i nt er est s at st ake, whet her t he i nvasi on of
per sonal pr i vacy posed by di scl osur e i s cl ear l y unwar r ant ed by
t he publ i c i nt er est ser ved by di scl osur e. As expl ai ned above,
t he pr i vacy i nt er est s at st ake i n t hi s case ar e subst ant i al l y
di mi ni shed, whi ch means t hat t hey can easi l y be over r i dden by
t he publ i c s i nt er est i n di scl osur e. Mor eover , t he publ i c
i nt er est ser ved by di scl osur e of t he r edact ed name i s
si gni f i cant , as di scl osur e r eveal s an unusual and pot ent i al l y
i l l egal or unet hi cal col l abor at i on bet ween a si t t i ng Supr eme
Cour t J ust i ce and t he FBI i n t he i nvest i gat i on of a pr i vat e
ci t i zen on behal f of t he Pr esi dent . Put si mpl y, di scl osur e of
t he r edact ed name t el l s t he publ i c f ew per sonal det ai l s about
t he named i ndi vi dual , but r eveal s a gr eat deal about t he
f unct i oni ng of t he Hoover FBI dur i ng t he J ohnson pr esi dency. I n
such a si t uat i on, t he t hr eat t o pr i vacy posed by di scl osur e
cannot be sai d t o be cl ear l y unwar r ant ed. See Dep t of Ai r
For ce v. Rose, 425 U. S. at 380 n. 19 ( 1976) ( Exempt i on 6 was
di r ect ed at t hr eat s t o pr i vacy i nt er est s mor e pal pabl e t han mer e
possi bi l i t i es. ) . Exempt i on 6 t her ef or e does not pr ovi de a
pr oper basi s f or t he r edact i ons i n t he DeLoach Memor andum.
47

2. Exempt i on 7( C)
I n addi t i on t o Exempt i on 6, t he Gover nment al so asser t s
t hat nondi scl osur e of t he r edact ed name i s appr opr i at e under
Exempt i on 7( C) . That exempt i on cover s r ecor ds or i nf or mat i on
compi l ed f or l aw enf or cement pur poses, t o t he ext ent t hat
pr oduct i on of t hose r ecor ds coul d r easonabl y be expect ed t o
const i t ut e an unwar r ant ed i nvasi on of per sonal pr i vacy. 5
U. S. C. 552( b) ( 7) ( C) . Ther ef or e, l i ke Exempt i on 6, Exempt i on
7( C) pr esent s a t hr eshol d quest i on r egar di ng t he subst ant i ve
cover age of t he exempt i on namel y, whet her t he i nf or mat i on at
i ssue was compi l ed f or l aw enf or cement pur poses. I f t he
i nf or mat i on was compi l ed f or such pur poses, t he cour t t hen
pr oceeds t o bal ance t he publ i c i nt er est ser ved by di scl osur e
agai nst t he pr i vacy i nt er est s pr ot ect ed by t he exempt i on.
The Thi r d Ci r cui t has adopt ed a r at i onal nexus t est f or
det er mi ni ng whet her i nf or mat i on was compi l ed f or l aw
enf or cement pur poses. Davi n, 60 F. 3d at 1056. Under t hat t wo-
par t t est , t he gover nment must f i r st i dent i f y a r el at i onshi p
bet ween t he r equest ed document s and a l egi t i mat e l aw
enf or cement concer n. Abdel f at t ah v. U. S. Dep t of Homel and
Sec. , 488 F. 3d 178, 185 ( 3d Ci r . 2007) . Then, t he gover nment
must demonst r at e t hat t he asser t ed r el at i onshi p i s based upon
i nf or mat i on suf f i ci ent t o suppor t at l east a col or abl e cl ai mof
t he r el at i onshi p s r at i onal i t y. I d. at 186. The bur den i s
48

t her ef or e on t he agency t o af f i r mat i vel y demonst r at e a r at i onal
nexus bet ween i t s l aw enf or cement aut hor i t y and t he
i nf or mat i on cont ai ned i n t he wi t hhel d mat er i al . I d. ; see al so
Davi n, 60 F. 3d at 1056 ( concl udi ng t hat t he FBI f ai l ed t o meet
i t s bur den because t he evi dence submi t t ed di d not pr ovi de any
det ai l concer ni ng t he supposed l aw enf or cement act i vi t i es t hat
gener at ed each of t he document s) . The cour t wi l l not
ext r apol at e a l aw enf or cement pur pose f r omagency submi ssi ons
t hat l ack suf f i ci ent det ai l on t hei r own. Abdel f at t ah, 488 F. 3d
at 186.
The Gover nment ar gues t hat Exempt i on 7( C) i s appl i cabl e
t o t he r edact i ons i n t he DeLoach Memor andumbecause t he
Memor andumwas par t of t he FBI s backgr ound i nvest i gat i on of
Geor ge Hami l t on. That i nvest i gat i on had a l egi t i mat e l aw
enf or cement pur pose, t he Gover nment cont ends, because [ t ] he
i nvest i gat i on was of someone who was i n t he pr oxi mi t y of t he
pr esi dent and [ was] devel opi ng an i nt i mat e r el at i onshi p wi t h one
of [ t he pr esi dent s] chi l dr en. Tr . Ex Par t e Hr g 12. Because of
Hami l t on s pr oxi mi t y t o t he Pr esi dent s f ami l y, t he Gover nment
asser t s t hat t he FBI s i nvest i gat i on of hi mwas i nci dent t o t he
pr ot ect i on of t he pr esi dent , whi ch i t says i s a l egi t i mat e l aw
enf or cement act i vi t y. I d. at 13; see al so i d. at 26 ( [ W] e t ake
t he posi t i on t hat i nvest i gat i ng someone who i s pot ent i al l y i n an
i nt i mat e r el at i onshi p wi t h t he chi l d of t he pr esi dent i s a
49

l egi t i mat e i nqui r y. ) . I n suppor t of t hat pr oposi t i on, t he
Gover nment ci t es t o 28 U. S. C. 533( 2) , whi ch pr ovi des t hat t he
At t or ney Gener al may appoi nt of f i ci al s t o assi st i n t he
pr ot ect i on of t he per son of t he Pr esi dent . 2nd Har dy Decl . 8.
Cl osel y scr ut i ni zed, however , t hat ar gument i s f l awed i n
sever al r espect s. Fi r st , under t he r at i onal nexus t est , i t i s
i nsuf f i ci ent f or an agency t o j ust i f y an i nvest i gat i on by mer el y
ci t i ng t o a l egal aut hor i t y f or such i nvest i gat i ons gener al l y.
As t he Thi r d Ci r cui t expl ai ned i n Davi n, i n or der f or a r ecor d
t o f al l wi t hi n Exempt i on 7, t he agency act i on t hat pr oduced t he
r ecor d must be connect ed t o a pot ent i al vi ol at i on of l aw or
secur i t y r i sk. 60 F. 3d at 1056. I t i s not enough f or an agency
t o ci t e t o t he cr i mi nal st at ut es, execut i ve or der s, and publ i c
l aws pur suant t o whi ch t he i nvest i gat i ons wer e under t aken. I d.
Rat her , t he agency must est abl i sh t hat i t s i nvest i gat or y
act i vi t i es [ wer e] r eal i st i cal l y based on a l egi t i mat e concer n
t hat f eder al l aws have been or may be vi ol at ed or t hat nat i onal
secur i t y may be br eached. I d. at 1055 ( quot i ng Pr at t v.
Webst er , 673 F. 2d 408, 421 ( D. C. Ci r . 1982) ) . Put si mpl y, even
i f st at ut or i l y aut hor i zed, an i nvest i gat i on does not const i t ut e
a l egi t i mat e l aw enf or cement act i vi t y unl ess i t i s r el at ed t o
50

a possi bl e secur i t y r i sk or vi ol at i on of f eder al l aw.
11
I d. at
1056.
That i s so even when t he agency at i ssue i s a l aw
enf or cement agency, such as t he FBI . See i d. at 1054. I n t hi s
ci r cui t , t her e i s no pr esumpt i on t hat i nvest i gat i ons under t aken
by t he FBI pur suant t o i t s st at ut or y aut hor i t y ser ve a
l egi t i mat e l aw enf or cement f unct i on. I ndeed, i n t he Davi n
deci si on, t he Thi r d Ci r cui t expr essl y decl i ned t o adopt a per se
r ul e t hat r ecor ds compi l ed by t he FBI qual i f y as r ecor ds
compi l ed f or l aw enf or cement pur poses. I d. I nst ead, t he cour t
agr eed wi t h t he D. C. Ci r cui t s deci si on i n Pr at t v. Webst er ,
whi ch hel d t hat even l aw enf or cement agenci es l i ke t he FBI must
i dent i f y a possi bl e secur i t y r i sk or vi ol at i on of f eder al l aw i n
or der t o show t hat t he agency act ed wi t hi n i t s pr i nci pal
f unct i on of l aw enf or cement , r at her t han mer el y engagi ng i n a
gener al moni t or i ng of pr i vat e i ndi vi dual s act i vi t i es. I d.
11
The Thi r d Ci r cui t s l at er deci si on i n Abdel f at t ah
cabi ned cer t ai n aspect s of t he Davi n opi ni on. I n par t i cul ar ,
Abdel f at t ah cl ar i f i ed t hat , cont r ar y t o l anguage i ncl uded i n
di ct a i n Davi n, an agency seeki ng t o i nvoke Exempt i on 7 does
not have t o i dent i f y a par t i cul ar i ndi vi dual or i nci dent as t he
obj ect of an i nvest i gat i on i nt o a pot ent i al vi ol at i on of l aw or
secur i t y r i sk. 488 F. 3d at 185. But Abdel f at t ah r ei t er at ed t he
aspect s of t he Davi n deci si on r ef er enced above, speci f i cal l y
emphasi zi ng t hat Exempt i on 7 st i l l r equi r es an agency t o
demonst r at e t hat t he r el at i onshi p bet ween i t s aut hor i t y t o
enf or ce a st at ut e or r egul at i on and t he act i vi t y gi vi ng r i se t o
t he r equest ed document s i s based upon i nf or mat i on suf f i ci ent t o
suppor t at l east a col or abl e cl ai mof t he r el at i onshi p s
r at i onal i t y. I d. at 186.
51


( quot i ng Pr at t , 673 F. 2d at 420) . As t he Pr at t Cour t expl ai ned,
t he phr ase l aw enf or cement pur pose i n Exempt i on 7 was not
meant t o i ncl ude i nvest i gat or y act i vi t i es whol l y unr el at ed t o
l aw enf or cement agenci es l egi sl at ed f unct i ons of pr event i ng
r i sks t o t he nat i onal secur i t y and vi ol at i ons of t he cr i mi nal
l aws and of appr ehendi ng t hose who do vi ol at e t he l aws. Pr at t ,
673 F. 2d at 420- 21.
The par t i cul ar f act s at i ssue i n Davi n ar e i nst r uct i ve.
I n t hat case, t he FOI A r equest er sought al l FBI r ecor ds
per t ai ni ng t o t he Wor ker s Al l i ance of Amer i ca ( WAA) and i t s
f or mer head, Davi d Lassl er ( who had pr ovi ded a l et t er
aut hor i zi ng r el ease of hi s f i l es) . 60 F. 3d at 1046. The FBI
di scl osed some r ecor ds, but i t wi t hhel d t housands of document s
compi l ed dur i ng t he i t s i nvest i gat i on of t he WAA and Lassl er .
I d. The FBI s i nvest i gat i on ( or , mor e accur at el y, ser i es of
i nvest i gat i ons) began i n t he 1930s t o expl or e al l egat i ons t hat
t he WAA was a f r ont f or t he Communi st Par t y of Amer i ca. I d. The
FBI j ust i f i ed wi t hhol di ng document s connect ed wi t h t hat
i nvest i gat i on by gener al l y descr i bi ng t he f i l es r el at ed t o t he
i nqui r y and ci t i ng sever al l egal aut hor i t i es f or i t s
i nvest i gat i on, i ncl udi ng st at ut es cr i mi nal i zi ng t r eason and
espi onage, as wel l as execut i ve or der s addr essi ng secur i t y and
l oyal t y i nvest i gat i ons of gover nment empl oyees. I d. at 1046- 47.
52

The Thi r d Ci r cui t consi der ed r el i ance upon t hese f act s
i nadequat e t o sat i sf y t he agency s bur den under Exempt i on 7.
Whi l e acknowl edgi ng t hat t he r ef er ences t o l egal aut hor i t i es
wer e pr esumabl y i nt ended t o suggest t hat somewher e wi t hi n t he
par amet er s of t hese gener al pr ovi si ons wer e cr i mi nal act s t hat
t he FBI suspect ed [ Lassl er and t he WAA] of commi t t i ng, t he
cour t concl uded t hat t he si mpl e r eci t at i on of st at ut es, or der s
and publ i c l aws i s an i nsuf f i ci ent showi ng of a r at i onal nexus
t o a l egi t i mat e l aw enf or cement concer n. I d. at 1056 ( quot i ng
Ki ng v. Dep t of J ust i ce, 830 F. 2d 210, 230 ( D. C. Ci r . 1987) )
( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) . The cour t not ed t hat t he FBI s
i nvest i gat i ons spanned mor e t han f or t y year s, and yet t he
gover nment had not poi nt ed t o a si ngl e ar r est , i ndi ct ment or
convi ct i on. I d. Al t hough an i ndi ct ment i s not necessar y f or t he
gover nment t o sust ai n i t s bur den, t he cour t expl ai ned t hat , on
t hat r ecor d, t he gover nment must al l ege addi t i onal speci f i c
f act s t hat demonst r at e t he agency was gat her i ng i nf or mat i on
wi t h t he good f ai t h bel i ef t hat t he subj ect may vi ol at e or has
vi ol at ed f eder al l aw, and was not mer el y moni t or i ng t he
subj ect f or pur poses unr el at ed t o enf or cement of t he l aw. I d.
at 1056- 57 ( quot i ng Lamont v. Dep t of J ust i ce, 475 F. Supp.
761, 773 ( S. D. N. Y. 1979) ) .
Her e, t he Gover nment s basi c cont ent i on i s t hat , pur suant
t o i t s st at ut or y aut hor i t y t o assi st i n t he pr ot ect i on of t he
53

pr esi dent , t he FBI i s per mi t t ed t o i nvest i gat e pr i vat e
i ndi vi dual s who wi l l be i n cl ose pr oxi mi t y t o t he pr esi dent , and
t hus t he i nst ant i nvest i gat i on whi ch undeni abl y t ar get ed a
per son who woul d have been i n cl ose pr oxi mi t y t o Pr esi dent
J ohnson must be a l egi t i mat e i nqui r y pr ot ect ed by Exempt i on
7. But t hat ar gument i s essent i al l y ci r cul ar . As Davi n makes
cl ear , t he f act t hat t her e i s st at ut or y aut hor i zat i on f or an
agency i nvest i gat i on does not necessar i l y mean t hat t he
i nvest i gat i on was par t of a l egi t i mat e l aw enf or cement act i vi t y.
I n ot her wor ds, i t i s possi bl e f or t he FBI t o have t he aut hor i t y
t o i nvest i gat e pr i vat e ci t i zens who wi l l be i n cl ose pr oxi mi t y
t o t he pr esi dent , but f or t he act ual i nvest i gat i on t he agency
conduct ed t o be unr el at ed t o a l egi t i mat e l aw enf or cement
concer n. See Abdel f at t ah, 488 F. 3d at 185. The Gover nment s
ci t at i on t o i t s st at ut or y aut hor i t y t o assi st i n t he pr ot ect i on
of t he per son of t he Pr esi dent i s t her ef or e i nadequat e,
st andi ng al one, t o est abl i sh a r at i onal nexus bet ween t he
FBI s l aw enf or cement aut hor i t y and t he i nf or mat i on cont ai ned
i n t he wi t hhel d mat er i al . I d. at 186.
Mor eover , t he r ecor d i n t hi s case st r ongl y suggest s t hat
t he FBI s i nvest i gat i on of Geor ge Hami l t on was not act ual l y
based on a l egi t i mat e concer n t hat f eder al l aws have been or
may be vi ol at ed or t hat nat i onal secur i t y may be br eached. See
Davi n, 60 F. 3d at 1055. The Gover nment does not asser t t hat
54

Hami l t on was suspect ed of havi ng vi ol at ed a f eder al l aw, nor
does i t cont end t hat hi s i nvest i gat i on was i n any way associ at ed
wi t h cr i mi nal al l egat i ons. Rat her , t he Gover nment ar gues t hat
t he pur pose of t he i nvest i gat i on was t o assi st i n t he pr ot ect i on
of t he Pr esi dent and hi s f ami l y, i mpl i ci t l y asser t i ng t hat
Hami l t on posed a secur i t y r i sk.
12
But t her e i s not hi ng i n
Hami l t on s i nvest i gat i ve f i l e t hat suggest s he was vi ewed as a
secur i t y t hr eat or t hat t he FBI bel i eved he posed a danger t o
Pr esi dent J ohnson. To t he cont r ar y, t he f i l e i ndi cat es t hat t he
agency i nvest i gat ed Hami l t on ei t her out of par ent al concer n
about hi s char act er or because of t he per cei ved pol i t i cal
t hr eat he posed t o Pr esi dent J ohnson namel y, t he r i sk of
scandal cr eat ed by any associ at i on wi t h homosexual i t y and t he
pot ent i al f or embar r assment t o t he Pr esi dent . Regar dl ess of
12
I n not i ng t he FBI s i mpl i ci t asser t i on t hat Hami l t on
posed a secur i t y r i sk, t he Cour t does not suggest t hat an
i ndi vi dual must pose a demonst r abl e secur i t y r i sk i n or der f or
t he FBI t o have st at ut or y aut hor i zat i on t o i nvest i gat e t hat
per son i nci dent t o i t s aut hor i t y t o t o assi st i n t he pr ot ect i on
of t he per son of t he Pr esi dent . Rat her , t he Cour t not es t he
i mpl i ci t asser t i on because i t i s t he onl y means by whi ch t he FBI
at t empt s t o est abl i sh a l egi t i mat e l aw enf or cement concer n
under pi nni ng i t s i nvest i gat i on. The i ssue i n t hi s case i s not
whet her t he FBI s act i ons wer e l egal , i t i s whet her t he act i ons
wer e r el at ed t o a l egi t i mat e l aw enf or cement act i vi t y. As
expl ai ned above, a l egi t i mat e l aw enf or cement act i vi t y must be
r el at ed t o a possi bl e secur i t y r i sk or vi ol at i on of f eder al
l aw. Davi n, 60 F. 3d at 1056. Because t he Gover nment does not
cont end t hat Hami l t on s i nvest i gat i on was based upon a possi bl e
vi ol at i on of f eder al l aw, t he i nvest i gat i on must have been based
upon a possi bl e secur i t y r i sk i n or der t o t r i gger t he
pr ot ect i ons of Exempt i on 7( C) .
55


mot i ve, t he f i l e can be r ead as an ef f or t by t he FBI t o uncover
embar r assi ng det ai l s about a pr i vat e ci t i zen as a per sonal f avor
t o t he Pr esi dent . I n f act , t he Gover nment r epeat edl y conceded
t hose f act s dur i ng t he ex par t e hear i ng, st at i ng t hat t he
pur pose of t he i nvest i gat i on was a par ent al i nt er est on
J ohnson s behal f , Tr . Ex Par t e Hr g 6, agr eei ng t hat Hami l t on
was never t he subj ect of a cr i mi nal or a nat i onal secur i t y
i nvest i gat i on, i d. at 8, acknowl edgi ng t hat t he Wi t hhel d Fi l e
seems t o be mor e l i ke di ggi ng up di r t on Mr . Hami l t on t han
conduct i ng a secur i t y i nvest i gat i on, i d. at 12- 13, and even
admi t t i ng t hat r evi ew of t he Wi t hhel d Fi l e does not r eveal
anyt hi ng t hat suggest ed a danger t o Pr esi dent J ohnson, i d. at
14. I n l i ght of t hose f act s, t he Gover nment s cur r ent posi t i on
t hat t he i nvest i gat i on was f or pr ot ect i on of t he per son of t he
pr esi dent seems t o be mer el y a post - hoc r at i onal i zat i on of t he
agency s conduct r at her t han t he genui ne mot i ve f or t he FBI s
i nvest i gat i on.
Based on t hat r ecor d, t he Cour t concl udes t hat t he FBI
has not met i t s bur den of demonst r at i ng a r at i onal nexus
bet ween i t s l aw enf or cement aut hor i t y and t he i nf or mat i on
cont ai ned i n t he wi t hhel d mat er i al . Abdel f at t ah, 488 F. 3d at
186. Qui t e t he cont r ar y; t hi s case pr esent s pr eci sel y t he ki nd
of si t uat i on t hat i nspi r ed t he adopt i on of t he r at i onal nexus
t est t o begi n wi t h. By pl aci ng t he bur den on t he agency t o
56

demonst r at e a r at i onal r el at i onshi p bet ween t he wi t hhel d
i nf or mat i on and a l egi t i mat e l aw enf or cement concer n, t he Thi r d
Ci r cui t has at t empt ed t o di f f er ent i at e bet ween FBI
i nvest i gat i ons t hat ar e based upon genui ne concer ns about
nat i onal secur i t y or cr i mi nal conduct , and pr et ext ual
i nvest i gat i ons t hat const i t ut e gener al moni t or i ng of pr i vat e
i ndi vi dual s act i vi t i es. See Davi n, 60 F. 3d at 1054 ( quot i ng
Pr at t , 673 F. 2d at 420) . Her e, t he FBI has asser t ed a st at ut or y
basi s f or i t s i nvest i gat i on t hat coul d be i ndi cat i ve of a
l egi t i mat e l aw enf or cement concer n, but t he evi dence i n t hi s
case shows j ust t he opposi t e, r eveal i ng t hat t he Whi t e House
enl i st ed t he FBI t o conduct a per sonal i nqui r y i nt o a pr i vat e
i ndi vi dual s backgr ound wi t hout any suggest i on of a secur i t y
t hr eat . That evi dence i s i nsuf f i ci ent t o sat i sf y t he t hr eshol d
i nqui r y of Exempt i on 7( C) , as i t does not show a r at i onal
r el at i onshi p bet ween t he wi t hhel d i nf or mat i on and a l egi t i mat e
l aw enf or cement concer n. See Abdel f at t ah, 488 F. 3d at 185.
When a r ecor d does not sat i sf y t he t hr eshol d r equi r ement
of Exempt i on 7( C) , t he cour t need not consi der whet her
pr oduct i on of t hat r ecor d coul d r easonabl y be expect ed t o
const i t ut e an unwar r ant ed i nvasi on of per sonal pr i vacy. 5
U. S. C. 552( b) ( 7) ( C) . Nonet hel ess, f or t he sake of
compl et eness, t he Cour t not es t hat t he Gover nment woul d f ai l at
t hat st age of t he i nqui r y as wel l . As ment i oned above, t he
57

i nt er est s wei ghed i n t he bal anci ng t est of Exempt i on 7( C) ar e
i dent i cal t o t hose wei ghed i n Exempt i on 6; t he t est s di f f er onl y
i n t he magni t ude of t he publ i c i nt er est t hat i s r equi r ed t o
over r i de t he r espect i ve pr i vacy i nt er est s pr ot ect ed by t he
exempt i ons. U. S. Dep t of Def ense, 510 U. S. at 496 n. 6.
Speci f i cal l y, f or a r ecor d t o be wi t hhel d under Exempt i on 6,
di scl osur e must const i t ut e a cl ear l y unwar r ant ed i nvasi on of
per sonal pr i vacy, wher eas r ecor ds can be wi t hhel d under
Exempt i on 7( C) i f di scl osur e coul d r easonabl y be expect ed t o
const i t ut e an unwar r ant ed i nvasi on of per sonal pr i vacy. 5
U. S. C. 552( b) ( 6) , ( 7) ( C) ( emphasi s added) . Exempt i on 7( C)
t her ef or e pr ovi des gr eat er pr ot ect i on f r omdi scl osur e t han
[ E] xempt i on 6. Sheet Met al Wor ker s, 135 F. 3d at 898; see al so
Repor t er s Comm. , 489 U. S. at 756 ( [ T] he st andar d f or eval uat i ng
a t hr eat ened i nvasi on of pr i vacy i nt er est s r esul t i ng f r omt he
di scl osur e of r ecor ds compi l ed f or l aw enf or cement pur poses i s
somewhat br oader t han t he st andar d appl i cabl e t o per sonnel ,
medi cal , and si mi l ar f i l es. ) .
For t he r easons expl ai ned above wi t h r egar d t o Exempt i on
6, t he pr i vacy i nt er est s i n t he r edact ed name ar e subst ant i al l y
di mi ni shed, and t he publ i c i nt er est ser ved by di scl osur e i s
si gni f i cant . Mor e speci f i cal l y, t he publ i c s i nt er est i n
sheddi ng l i ght on t he FBI s unconvent i onal col l abor at i on wi t h a
si t t i ng Supr eme Cour t J ust i ce i n t he backgr ound i nvest i gat i on of
58

a pr i vat e ci t i zen out wei ghs Geor ge Hami l t on s l i mi t ed i nt er est
i n avoi di ng di scl osur e t hat he was one of t he subj ect s of a
conver sat i on bet ween a seni or FBI of f i ci al and J ust i ce For t as.
Under such ci r cumst ances, di scl osur e of t he r edact ed name cannot
r easonabl y be expect ed t o const i t ut e an unwar r ant ed i nvasi on of
per sonal pr i vacy. See 5 U. S. C. 552( b) ( 7) ( C) . Ther ef or e,
r ecogni zi ng t hat Exempt i on 7( C) i s mor e pr ot ect i ve t han
Exempt i on 6, t he Cour t concl udes t hat di scl osur e of t he r edact ed
name i s war r ant ed under ei t her exempt i on.
3. Appr opr i at e Remedy
The r edact i on of t he f i f t een- char act er name f r omt he
DeLoach Memor andumi s not appr opr i at e under ei t her of t he FOI A
exempt i ons asser t ed by t he Gover nment . Al t hough t he name i s a
si mi l ar f i l e wi t hi n t he meani ng of Exempt i on 6, di scl osur e of
t he name does not const i t ut e a cl ear l y unwar r ant ed i nvasi on of
per sonal pr i vacy. 5 U. S. C. 552( b) ( 6) . As f or Exempt i on 7( C) ,
t he Gover nment has not met i t s bur den of demonst r at i ng a
r at i onal connect i on bet ween t he wi t hhel d i nf or mat i on and a
l egi t i mat e l aw enf or cement concer n. See Abdel f at t ah, 488 F. 3d at
186. Mor eover , even i f t he Gover nment had succeeded i n maki ng
such a showi ng, di scl osur e of t he r edact ed name cannot
r easonabl y be expect ed t o const i t ut e an unwar r ant ed i nvasi on of
per sonal pr i vacy. 5 U. S. C. 552( b) ( 7) ( C) . The Cour t wi l l
t her ef or e gr ant Pl ai nt i f f s mot i on f or summar y j udgment on t he
59

FOI A cl ai mi n t he Or i gi nal Compl ai nt ,
13
deny t he Gover nment s
suppl ement al mot i on f or summar y j udgment , and or der t he FBI t o
pr oduce t o Pl ai nt i f f an unr edact ed copy of t he DeLoach
Memor andum.
B. The Wi t hhel d Fi l e
The Cour t s next t ask i s t o eval uat e t he cr oss- mot i ons
f or summar y j udgment on t he cl ai ms i n t he Suppl ement al
Compl ai nt , whi ch ar i se f r omt he FBI s handl i ng of Pl ai nt i f f s
FOI A r equest f or FBI Fi l e No. 62- HQ- 110654 ( t he f i l e i n whi ch
t he DeLoach Memor andumi s l ocat ed) . Pl ai nt i f f submi t t ed hi s
r equest on Oct ober 19, 2012. Pl . s Mot . Leave Fi l e Suppl . Compl .
13
Pl ai nt i f f al so br i ngs a cl ai munder t he APA based upon
t he same al l eged conduct by t he FBI , and seeki ng t he same
r el i ef . However , t he APA onl y al l ows r evi ew wher e t her e exi st s
no ot her adequat e r emedy i n a cour t . Ct r . Pl at t e Nat ur al Res.
Di st . v. U. S. Dep t of Agr i c. , 643 F. 3d 1142, 1148 ( 8t h Ci r .
2011) ( quot i ng 5 U. S. C. 704) . When, as her e, t he FOI A pr ovi des
an al t er nat e adequat e r emedy, a pl ai nt i f f i s pr ecl uded f r om
seeki ng r el i ef di r ect l y under t he APA s j udi ci al r evi ew
pr ovi si ons. 5 U. S. C. 704 ( Agency act i on made r evi ewabl e by
st at ut e and f i nal agency act i on f or whi ch t her e i s no ot her
adequat e r emedy i n a cour t ar e subj ect t o j udi ci al r evi ew. ) ;
see al so Ri mmer v. Hol der , 700 F. 3d 246, 262 ( 6t h Ci r . 2012)
( hol di ng t hat , because t he di st r i ct cour t has aut hor i t y under
t he FOI A t o or der pr oduct i on of t he unr edact ed document s
[ pl ai nt i f f ] seeks, t he FOI A cl ear l y pr ovi des an al t er nat e
adequat e r emedy i n cour t and t hus t r i gger s 704 s bar on cl ai ms
br ought under t he APA) ; Nat l Sec. Counsel or s v. CI A, 898 F.
Supp. 2d 233, 264 ( D. D. C. 2012) ( [ W] her e a pl ai nt i f f cl ai ms
t hat an agency has wr ongf ul l y wi t hhel d agency r ecor ds i n
connect i on wi t h di scr et e FOI A r equest s, an APA cl ai mseeki ng
compel l ed di scl osur e of t he wi t hhel d r ecor ds i s pr ecl uded. ) .
Accor di ngl y, t he Cour t wi l l deny Pl ai nt i f f s mot i on f or summar y
j udgment t o t he ext ent i t seeks addi t i onal r el i ef under t he APA.
60


Ex. A. , FOI A Request , Oct . 19, 2012, ECF No. 21- 1. At t he t i me
Pl ai nt i f f moved t o f i l e t he Suppl ement al Compl ai nt el even mont hs
l at er , t he FBI had acknowl edged r ecei pt of t he r equest f or t he
f i l e, but had nei t her pr oduced any document s r esponsi ve t o t he
Request nor deni ed i t . Suppl . Compl . 4. Once t he Suppl ement al
Compl ai nt was f i l ed, t he FBI deni ed Pl ai nt i f f s r equest ,
expl ai ni ng i n a l et t er dat ed December 9, 2013, t hat , because
Pl ai nt i f f had r equest ed t he f i l e of a l i vi ng t hi r d par t y, t he
ent i r e f i l e and i t s cont ent s ar e cat egor i cal l y wi t hhel d pur suant
t o FOI A Exempt i ons ( b) ( 6) and ( b) ( 7) ( C) . 3r d Har dy Decl . Ex. D,
FOI A Deni al Let t er , Dec. 9, 2013.
Pl ai nt i f f s Suppl ement al Compl ai nt , as or i gi nal l y f i l ed,
asser t s t hat t he FBI vi ol at ed t he FOI A by f ai l i ng t o t i mel y
r espond t o Pl ai nt i f f s r equest .
14
Suppl . Compl . 11. Af t er t he
FBI cat egor i cal l y deni ed t he r equest , t he Cour t gr ant ed
Pl ai nt i f f s mot i on t o add t o t he Suppl ement al Compl ai nt an
addi t i onal FOI A cl ai mar i si ng f r omt he FBI s al l eged f ai l ur e t o
r el ease r easonabl y segr egabl e, nonexempt mat er i al f r omt he
r equest ed f i l e. To r esol ve t he pendi ng cr oss- mot i ons f or summar y
j udgment on t he cl ai ms i n t he Suppl ement al Compl ai nt , t he Cour t
must t her ef or e deci de t wo quest i ons: ( 1) whet her t he FBI
14
The Suppl ement al Compl ai nt al so i ncl udes a cl ai munder
t he APA. As expl ai ned above, see supr a not e 13, because t he FOI A
pr ovi des an al t er nat e adequat e r emedy, Pl ai nt i f f i s pr ecl uded
f r omseeki ng r el i ef di r ect l y under t he APA. See 5 U. S. C. 704.
61


vi ol at ed t he FOI A by cat egor i cal l y wi t hhol di ng t he ent i r e
r equest ed f i l e; and ( 2) i f so, what r emedy i s appr opr i at e.
15

1. Cat egor i cal Deni al of t he Fi l e
The Gover nment cont ends t hat t he cl ai ms i n t he
Suppl ement al Compl ai nt shoul d be di smi ssed because backgr ound
check f i l es of l i vi ng t hi r d par t y i ndi vi dual s ar e cat egor i cal l y
exempt f r omdi scl osur e under Exempt i on 6 and Exempt i on 7( C) . I t s
basi c ar gument i s t hat , [ w] i t hout expr ess aut hor i zat i on and
consent f r omt he l i vi ng t hi r d par t y, pr oof of deat h, and/ or
evi dence t hat t he publ i c i nt er est i n di scl osur e out wei ghs
per sonal pr i vacy i nt er est s, di scl osur e of any of t he
i nf or mat i on i n a backgr ound i nvest i gat i ve f i l e const i t ut es an
unwar r ant ed i nvasi on of per sonal pr i vacy. 4t h Har dy Decl .
34. I n suppor t of t hat cont ent i on, t he Gover nment expl ai ns t hat
a backgr ound check f i l e wi l l nor mal l y cont ai n per sonal
i nf or mat i on such as soci al secur i t y number , dat e of bi r t h,
pr esent and past addr esses, f i nanci al i nf or mat i on, e. g. cr edi t
r epor t s, [ and] medi cal hi st or y. Mem. Supp. Def s. 2nd Suppl .
15
Because t he FBI di d not r espond t o Pl ai nt i f f s FOI A
r equest wi t hi n t he t went y- day per i od pr ovi ded f or i n t he FOI A,
Pl ai nt i f f i s deemed t o have exhaust ed hi s admi ni st r at i ve
r emedi es, 5 U. S. C. 552( a) ( 6) ( C) ( i ) , whi ch means t he Cour t has
j ur i sdi ct i on t o consi der hi s cl ai ms. See Amr o v. U. S. Cust oms
Ser v. , 128 F. Supp. 2d 776, 786 ( E. D. Pa. 2001) ( Robr eno, J . )
( Under FOI A s st at ut or y scheme, when an agency f ai l s t o compl y
i n a t i mel y f ashi on t o a pr oper FOI A r equest , i t may not i nsi st
on t he exhaust i on of admi ni st r at i ve r emedi es . . . . ( quot i ng
Pol l ack v. Dep t of J ust i ce, 49 F. 3d 115, 118 ( 4t h Ci r . 1995) ) ) .
62


Mot . Summ. J . 1. The Gover nment al so r epeat s t he ar gument t hat
t he r el evant i nvest i gat i on was a l egi t i mat e l aw enf or cement
act i vi t y, and i t suggest s t hat al l of t he document s i n t he
i nvest i gat i ve f i l e ar e t her ef or e subj ect t o Exempt i on 7( C) . I n
ot her wor ds, because of t he nat ur e of t he i nf or mat i on or di nar i l y
cont ai ned wi t hi n backgr ound check f i l es, t he FBI cont ends t hat
such f i l es can be wi t hhel d cat egor i cal l y and i n t hei r ent i r et y
under Exempt i ons 6 and 7( C) .
That ar gument f i nds no suppor t i n t he FOI A or i n t he
r el evant case l aw. As a gener al mat t er , t he FOI A does not per mi t
cat egor i cal deni al s of i ndi vi dual document s, much l ess ent i r e
f i l es. As Pl ai nt i f f r i ght l y not es, t he FOI A expr essl y pr ovi des
t hat [ a] ny r easonabl y segr egabl e por t i on of a r ecor d shal l be
pr ovi ded t o any per son r equest i ng such r ecor d af t er del et i on of
t he por t i ons whi ch ar e exempt . 5 U. S. C. 552( b) . Based upon
t hat pr ovi si on, t he Thi r d Ci r cui t has concl uded t hat t he bur den
i s on t he agency t o demonst r at e t hat i t has r el eased al l
r easonabl y segr egabl e por t i ons of each wi t hhel d document .
Abdel f at t ah, 488 F. 3d at 186. An agency cannot j ust i f y
wi t hhol di ng an ent i r e document si mpl y by showi ng t hat i t
cont ai ns some exempt mat er i al . I d. ( quot i ng Mead Dat a Cent . v.
U. S. Dep t of Ai r For ce, 566 F. 2d 242, 260 ( D. C. Ci r . 1977) )
( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . Nor i s i t suf f i ci ent f or t he
agency t o asser t t hat document s wer e wi t hhel d because t hey
63

cont ai n t he t ype of i nf or mat i on gener al l y pr ot ect ed by a
par t i cul ar exempt i on. Davi n, 60 F. 3d at 1052. Rat her , t he
agency must af f i r mat i vel y demonst r at e t hat al l r easonabl y
segr egabl e, nonexempt i nf or mat i on was r el eased. Abdel f at t ah,
488 F. 3d at 186; see al so Dep t of Ai r For ce v. Rose, 425 U. S.
at 380- 81 ( appr ovi ng of sel ect i ve r edact i on of per sonal det ai l s
f r omdocument s t hat woul d ot her wi se pose a cl ear l y unwar r ant ed
t hr eat t o per sonal pr i vacy) . The basi c pr emi se of t he
Gover nment s ar gument namel y, t hat cer t ai n t ypes of f i l es ar e
cat egor i cal l y exempt f r omdi scl osur e i s t her ef or e i ncor r ect as
a mat t er of l aw.
Fur t her mor e, nei t her of t he t wo exempt i ons asser t ed by
t he Gover nment can be sai d t o appl y t o al l of t he cont ent s of
t he par t i cul ar f i l e at i ssue i n t hi s case. Wi t h r egar d t o
Exempt i on 6, i t i s cer t ai nl y t r ue t hat a l ar ge amount of t he
i nf or mat i on i n t he Wi t hhel d Fi l e i mpl i cat es t he pr i vacy
i nt er est s of var i ous t hi r d par t i es. As t he Gover nment r i ght l y
not ed at t he ex par t e hear i ng, t he f i l e i ncl udes page af t er
page af t er page of gossi p- l aden r umor s of al l eged homosexual
behavi or by numer ous i ndi vi dual s, as wel l as ot her al l egat i ons
t hat coul d be vi ewed as der ogat or y or embar r assi ng. See Tr . Ex
Par t e Hr g 21. Much, i f not al l , of t hat i nf or mat i on i s l i kel y
pr ot ect ed by Exempt i on 6, as t he subj ect i ndi vi dual s may st i l l
r et ai n pr i vacy i nt er est s i n nondi scl osur e, and, gener al l y
64

speaki ng, t he publ i c i nt er est i n di scl osur e of gossi p about
pr i vat e ci t i zens i s mi ni mal t o nonexi st ent .
But i t i s al so cl ear t hat some i nf or mat i on i n t he f i l e i s
not pr ot ect ed by Exempt i on 6. For i nst ance, t he Gover nment
i t sel f admi t s t hat most of t he DeLoach Memor andumi s not exempt
f r omdi scl osur e, and t he FBI has pr evi ousl y r el eased a summar y
of anot her document i n t he Wi t hhel d Fi l e, whi ch addr essed
possi bl e homosexual act i vi t y by t he deceased act or Rock Hudson.
As t he r el ease of t hose document s shows, t her e i s i nf or mat i on i n
t he Wi t hhel d Fi l e t hat can be di scl osed wi t hout causi ng a
cl ear l y unwar r ant ed i nvasi on of per sonal pr i vacy. See 5 U. S. C.
552( b) ( 6) . The Gover nment t her ef or e cannot pr oper l y asser t
Exempt i on 6 as a basi s f or i t s deni al of t he ent i r e f i l e.
16

Tur ni ng t o Exempt i on 7( C) , t hat exempt i on al so cannot be
sai d t o appl y t o al l of t he i nf or mat i on i n t he Wi t hhel d Fi l e.
Fi r st , f or t he r easons expl ai ned i n dept h above, t he Gover nment
16
The Gover nment al so acknowl edged at t he ex par t e
hear i ng t hat an adver se r ul i ng wi t h r egar d t o t he r edact ed name
woul d necessi t at e anot her r evi ew of t he Wi t hhel d Fi l e t o
eval uat e whet her any of t he ot her i nf or mat i on i n t he f i l e coul d
be r el eased. See Tr . Ex Par t e Hr g 18. Once t he r edact ed name i s
made publ i c, t he FBI can no l onger wi t hhol d i nf or mat i on sol el y
on t he basi s t hat t he i nf or mat i on mi ght r eveal t he i dent i t y of
t he named i ndi vi dual . Of cour se, r eveal i ng t he i dent i t y of t hat
i ndi vi dual does not di scl ose any det ai l s about t he nat ur e of t he
i nvest i gat i on, and so t her e ar e cer t ai nl y st i l l pr i vacy
i nt er est s at st ake. But , as t he Gover nment admi t t ed, some of t he
document s i n t he Wi t hhel d Fi l e, such as newspaper cl i ppi ngs
r et ai ned wi t hi n t he f i l e, may need t o be r el eased i n l i ght of
t he Cour t s r ul i ng wi t h r egar d t o t he Redact ed Memor andum. I d.
65


has not met i t s bur den of demonst r at i ng a r at i onal nexus
bet ween t he i nst ant i nvest i gat i on and a l egi t i mat e l aw
enf or cement pur pose. As a r esul t , t he Gover nment has not
sat i sf i ed t he t hr eshol d Exempt i on 7 r equi r ement wi t h r egar d t o
any of t he document s i n t he Wi t hhel d Fi l e, not j ust t he DeLoach
Memor andum. Ther ef or e, absent evi dence t hat some of t he
document s i n t he Wi t hhel d Fi l e wer e act ual l y compi l ed f or a
l egi t i mat e l aw enf or cement pur pose ( per haps by showi ng t hat t hey
r el at e t o a di f f er ent i nvest i gat i on) , Exempt i on 7 cannot pr ovi de
a pr oper basi s f or nondi scl osur e of t he i nf or mat i on i n t he
Wi t hhel d Fi l e.
Second, even i f t he over al l i nvest i gat i on at i ssue di d
ser ve a l egi t i mat e l aw enf or cement f unct i on, t he Gover nment
st i l l coul d not asser t Exempt i on 7( C) as a basi s f or
cat egor i cal l y denyi ng al l of t he i nf or mat i on i n t he Wi t hhel d
Fi l e. I n addi t i on t o t he FOI A s gener al i nst r uct i on t hat
agenci es r el ease al l r easonabl y segr egabl e mat er i al s, Congr ess
speci f i cal l y amended t he FOI A t o pr event agenci es f r om
cat egor i cal l y wi t hhol di ng ent i r e f i l es under Exempt i on 7. As t he
Supr eme Cour t expl ai ned i n J ohn Doe Agency v. J ohn Doe Cor p. ,
Exempt i on 7 f or mer l y r ef er r ed t o i nvest i gat or y f i l es, r at her
t han r ecor ds. 493 U. S. 146, 156 ( 1989) . Based on t hat
l anguage, t he D. C. Ci r cui t had per mi t t ed Exempt i on 7 t o be
appl i ed whenever an agency coul d show t hat t he document sought
66

was an i nvest i gat or y f i l e compi l ed f or l aw enf or cement
pur poses. I d. Concer ned t hat agenci es woul d use t hat r ul e t o
commi ngl e ot her wi se nonexempt mat er i al s wi t h exempt mat er i al s i n
a l aw enf or cement i nvest i gat or y f i l e and cl ai mpr ot ect i on f r om
di scl osur e f or al l t he cont ent s, Congr ess changed t he wor d
f i l es t o r ecor ds. I d. Thus, i n i t s cur r ent f or m, Exempt i on 7
r equi r es t he agency t o demonst r at e t hat a par t i cul ar r ecor d
not j ust t he f i l e i n whi ch i t i s cont ai ned was compi l ed f or
l aw enf or cement pur poses. I d. ; see al so Davi n, 60 F. 3d at 1059-
60 ( [ T] her e can be no quest i on t hat t he 7( C) bal anci ng t est
must be conduct ed wi t h r egar d t o each document , because t he
pr i vacy i nt er est and t he i nt er est of t he publ i c i n di scl osur e
may var y f r omdocument t o document . I ndeed, t hese i nt er est s may
var y f r ompor t i on t o por t i on of an i ndi vi dual document .
( quot i ng Lame, 654 F. 2d at 923) ) ; Campbel l , 193 F. Supp. 2d at
38 ( [ T] he FBI r el i ed on an unt enabl e posi t i on t hat once an
i nvest i gat i on i s j ust i f i ed, al l document s r el at ed t o t hat
i nvest i gat i on ar e el i gi bl e f or exempt i on f r omFOI A. ) .
I n sum, t he Gover nment cannot cat egor i cal l y wi t hhol d an
ent i r e FBI f i l e on t he basi s t hat some of t he i nf or mat i on i n t he
f i l e i s l i kel y exempt f r omdi scl osur e. Rat her , af t er del et i ng
t he speci f i c por t i ons of t he f i l e t hat ar e exempt f r om
di scl osur e, t he FBI i s r equi r ed t o r el ease t o a FOI A r equest er
any r easonabl y segr egabl e por t i on of each r ecor d cont ai ned
67

wi t hi n t he f i l e. 5 U. S. C. 552( b) . The Gover nment has made no
ef f or t t o demonst r at e t hat i t has f ul f i l l ed t hat obl i gat i on. I n
f act , i n i t s r esponse t o Pl ai nt i f f s mot i on f or summar y
j udgment , t he Gover nment ef f ect i vel y concedes t hat t her e i s
r easonabl y segr egabl e mat er i al i n t he Wi t hhel d Fi l e, as i t not es
t he obvi ous possi bi l i t y t hat any one document may addr ess a
number of mat t er s, one or mor e of whi ch may be subj ect t o a l aw
enf or cement act i vi t y and pr i vacy exempt i on, whi l e ot her s may not
be. Def s. Mem. Opp n Pl . s 3r d Mot . Summ. J . 3, ECF No. 40. I n
ot her wor ds, t he Gover nment agr ees t hat t her e i s r easonabl y
segr egabl e, nonexempt mat er i al i n t he Wi t hhel d Fi l e. The
Gover nment s cat egor i cal deni al of Pl ai nt i f f s r equest f or t he
mat er i al i n t he f i l e i s t her ef or e i n vi ol at i on of t he FOI A.
2. Appr opr i at e Remedy
Because t he cat egor i cal deni al of Pl ai nt i f f s r equest
const i t ut es a vi ol at i on of t he FOI A, t he Gover nment s mot i on f or
summar y j udgment on t he cl ai ms i n t he Suppl ement al Compl ai nt
must be deni ed. For t he same r eason, Pl ai nt i f f i s ent i t l ed t o
j udgment i n hi s f avor on hi s cl ai mt hat t he FBI vi ol at ed t he
FOI A by f ai l i ng t o r el ease r easonabl y segr egabl e, nonexempt
mat er i al f r omt he r equest ed f i l e. The Cour t wi l l t her ef or e deny
t he Gover nment s mot i on and gr ant Pl ai nt i f f s mot i on t o t he
ext ent i t seeks a decl ar at i on t hat t he FBI s cat egor i cal deni al
of t he r equest ed f i l e was unl awf ul .
68

That concl usi on does not , however , mean t hat t he Cour t
must or der t he FBI t o pr oduce t he r equest ed f i l e. As di scussed
above, t he f i l e i s over f l owi ng wi t h gossi p, r umor , and t hi r d-
l evel hear say concer ni ng pot ent i al l y embar r assi ng al l egat i ons
and per sonal det ai l s about pr i vat e ci t i zens, and at l east some
of t hat i nf or mat i on i s l i kel y pr ot ect ed by Exempt i on 6 ( or
per haps by ot her exempt i ons) . Put si mpl y, much of t he
i nf or mat i on i n t he f i l e may st i l l be exempt f r omdi scl osur e,
even i f not cat egor i cal l y so.
17

As such, t he Cour t wi l l deny Pl ai nt i f f s r equest f or
i nj unct i ve r el i ef compel l i ng t he FBI t o pr ompt l y pr oduce t he
r equest ed mat er i al . Suppl . Compl . , Request f or Rel i ef 3.
17
The Cour t r ej ect s Pl ai nt i f f s i nvi t at i on t o t r eat t he
wi t hhol di ng of t he f i l e as spol i at i on of t he evi dence.
Accor di ng t o Pl ai nt i f f , [ b] y wi t hhol di ng f i l e 62- HQ- 110654 i n
i t s ent i r et y, t he FBI has engaged i n conceal i ng evi dence, a
f or mof spol i at i on of evi dence t hat Pl ai nt i f f says per mi t s t he
Cour t t o dr aw al l per mi ssi bl e adver se i nf er ences agai nst t he
FBI . Pl . s 3r d Mot . Summ. J . 20. But t he spol i at i on i nf er ence
Pl ai nt i f f r ef er s t o i s an evi dent i ar y r ul e t hat has no
appl i cat i on her e. The need f or a spol i at i on i nf er ence ar i ses
when a par t y has dest r oyed, or has ot her wi se made unavai l abl e,
evi dence r el evant t o t he di sput e bei ng l i t i gat ed. Schmi d v.
Mi l waukee El ec. Tool Cor p. , 13 F. 3d 76, 78 ( 3d Ci r . 1994) . The
r at i onal e f or t he i nf er ence i s t he common sense obser vat i on
t hat a par t y who dest r oys r el evant evi dence i s mor e l i kel y t o
have been t hr eat ened by t hat evi dence t han t he opposi ng par t y.
I d. Her e, t her e has not been any dest r uct i on of t he evi dence;
i ndeed, t he Gover nment made t he evi dence f ul l y avai l abl e t o t he
Cour t . Mor eover , t he Gover nment s f ai l ur e t o di scl ose t he
evi dence i s t he cr ux of t he l egal i ssue, and t he Gover nment
cont ends i t has no l egal obl i gat i on t o di scl ose any of t he
i nf or mat i on wi t hi n t he f i l e. Pl ai nt i f f s evocat i on of t he
spol i at i on i nf er ence i s t her ef or e i napposi t e.
69


I nst ead, consi st ent wi t h i t s br oad equi t abl e power under t he
FOI A, t he Cour t wi l l or der t he FBI t o r evi ew t he r equest ed f i l e
agai n i n l i ght of t he Cour t s r ul i ng and t o r el ease t o Pl ai nt i f f
any r easonabl y segr egabl e, nonexempt mat er i al cont ai ned wi t hi n
FBI Fi l e No. 62- HQ- 110654. See 5 U. S. C. 552( a) ( 4) ( B) ( gr ant i ng
di st r i ct cour t s j ur i sdi ct i on t o enj oi n t he agency f r om
wi t hhol di ng agency r ecor ds and t o or der t he pr oduct i on of any
agency r ecor ds i mpr oper l y wi t hhel d f r omt he compl ai nant ) ; see
al so Renegot i at i on Bd. v. Banner cr af t Cl ot hi ng Co. , 415 U. S. 1,
19 ( 1974) ( expl ai ni ng t hat t he di st r i ct cour t s br oad equi t abl e
power under t he FOI A i s not l i mi t ed t o t he speci f i c r emedi es
expr essl y del i neat ed i n t he st at ut e) .
V. CONCLUSION
Al t hough t hi s case ost ensi bl y i nvol ves t he di scl osur e of
t he name of a pr i vat e ci t i zen, t he par t i cul ar i nf or mat i on
r equest ed r eveal s l ess about t hat i ndi vi dual t han i t does about
t he f unct i oni ng of t he f eder al gover nment dur i ng t he 1960s.
Ul t i mat el y, di scl osur e of t he name i n l i ght of t he at t endi ng
ci r cumst ances goes t o t he cor e pur pose of t he FOI A: t o ensur e
t hat our democr acy can pr oper l y f unct i on by al l owi ng t he publ i c
t o know what t hei r gover nment i s up t o. Thus, f or t he r easons
expr essed above, t he Cour t wi l l deny bot h of t he Gover nment s
pendi ng mot i ons f or summar y j udgment i n t hei r ent i r et y, and
gr ant bot h of Pl ai nt i f f s pendi ng mot i ons f or summar y j udgment
70

i n par t . Speci f i cal l y, t he Cour t wi l l : ( 1) gr ant Pl ai nt i f f s
r equest f or a decl ar at i on t hat t he FBI s f ai l ur e t o pr ovi de hi m
wi t h an unr edact ed ver si on of t he DeLoach Memor andumi s
unl awf ul ; ( 2) gr ant Pl ai nt i f f s r equest f or an i nj unct i on
r equi r i ng t he FBI t o pr ompt l y pr ovi de hi mwi t h an unr edact ed
ver si on of t he DeLoach Memor andum; ( 3) gr ant Pl ai nt i f f s r equest
f or a decl ar at i on t hat t he FBI s cat egor i cal deni al of t he FBI
Fi l e No. 62- HQ- 110654 i s unl awf ul ; ( 4) or der t he FBI t o r evi ew
FBI Fi l e No. 62- HQ- 110654 agai n i n l i ght of t he Cour t s r ul i ng
and t o r el ease t o Pl ai nt i f f any r easonabl y segr egabl e, nonexempt
mat er i al cont ai ned wi t hi n t he f i l e; ( 5) deny Pl ai nt i f f s r equest
f or i nj unct i ve r el i ef compel l i ng t he FBI t o pr oduce t he ent i r et y
of FBI Fi l e No. 62- HQ- 110654; and ( 6) deny bot h of Pl ai nt i f f s
mot i ons t o t he ext ent t hey seek r el i ef under t he APA.
18
An
appr opr i at e or der f ol l ows.

18
The Cour t wi l l al so ent er t ai n a mot i on by Pl ai nt i f f
f or r easonabl e at t or ney f ees, as pr ovi ded by t he FOI A. See 5
U. S. C. 552( a) ( 4) ( E) ( i ) ( The Cour t may assess agai nst t he
Uni t ed St at es r easonabl e at t or ney f ees and ot her l i t i gat i on
cost s r easonabl y i ncur r ed i n any case under t hi s sect i on i n
whi ch t he compl ai nant has subst ant i al l y pr evai l ed. ) .
71







EXHIBIT A


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

TUAN SAMAHON, : CIVIL ACTION
: NO. 12-4839
Plaintiff, :
:
v. :
:
FEDERAL BUREAU OF :
INVESTIGATION, et al., :
:
Defendants. :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 25th day of August, 2014, for the
reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum, it is hereby
ORDERED that Defendants Supplemental Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 23) and Second Supplemental Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 35) are DENIED.
It is further ORDERED that Plaintiffs Renewed Motion
for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 27) and Third Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 38) are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as
follows:
1. The FBIs failure to provide Plaintiff with an
unredacted version of the DeLoach Memorandum is
DECLARED unlawful;
2. The FBI is ORDERED to promptly provide
Plaintiff with an unredacted version of the
DeLoach Memorandum;

2

3. The FBIs categorical denial of Plaintiffs
request for FBI File No. 62-HQ-110654 is
DECLARED unlawful;
4. The FBI is ORDERED to review FBI File No. 62-
HQ-110654 again in light of the Courts ruling
and to release to Plaintiff any reasonably
segregable, nonexempt material contained within
the file;
5. Plaintiffs request for injunctive relief
compelling the FBI to produce the entirety of
FBI File No. 62-HQ-110654 is DENIED;
6. Any additional relief sought under the
Administrative Procedure Act is DENIED.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Eduardo C. Robreno
EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J.



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

TUAN SAMAHON, : CIVIL ACTION
: NO. 12-4839
Plaintiff, :
:
v. :
:
FEDERAL BUREAU OF :
INVESTIGATION, et al., :
:
Defendants. :


JUDGMENT

AND NOW, this 25th day of August, 2014, it is hereby
ORDERED that JUDGMENT is entered in favor of Plaintiff and
against Defendants on the Freedom of Information Act claims
brought in the Complaint (ECF No. 1) and in the Supplemental
Complaint (ECF No. 30) as amended by the Courts Order of
January 28, 2014 (ECF No. 37).

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Eduardo C. Robreno
EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J.