Adam Pike and Bret M. Berry, Appellants v. United States Department of Justice, Appellee

Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Adam Pike and Bret M. Berry, Appellants v. United States Department of Justice, Appellee

No. 16-5303

Decided: June 23, 2017

BEFORE: Tatel, Brown, and Wilkins, Circuit Judges


Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance, the response thereto, and the reply; and the motion for summary reversal, the response thereto, and the reply, it is

ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be granted and the motion for summary reversal be denied. The merits of the parties' positions are so clear as to warrant summary action. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). Appellants challenge the government's withholdings under Freedom of Information Act Exemption 7(A). 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A). The government's publicly-filed declaration, however, provided sufficient justifications for the application of Exemption 7(A). See, e.g., Maydak v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 218 F.3d 760, 762 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (holding that the government may invoke Exemption 7(A) to “prevent disclosures which might prematurely reveal the government's cases in court, its evidence and strategies, or the nature, scope, direction, and focus of its investigations, and thereby enable suspects to establish defenses or fraudulent alibis or to destroy or alter evidence”); Ctr. for Nat'l Sec. Studies v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 331 F.3d 918, 930-31 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (holding that the government's disclosure of some information in a withheld record does not “lessen[ ] the government's argument that complete disclosure would provide a composite picture of its investigation and have negative effects on the investigation”). Finally, the government's public declaration provided sufficient information to allow the district court to determine that all segregable information was released, see Mead Data Central, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Air Force, 566 F.2d 242, 260-61 (D.C. Cir. 1977), and the district court made adequately specific findings regarding segregability, see Sussman v. U.S. Marshals Serv., 494 F.3d 1106, 1116-17 (D.C. Cir. 2007).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

Copied to clipboard