UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CITIZENS UNITED, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 18-1862 (RDM) v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION This case concerns a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, request submitted by Citizens United to the Department of State (“the Department”) seeking records related to an October 2016 meeting between Department officials and Christopher Steele. Citizens United v. Dep’t of State, 460 F. Supp. 3d 12, 15 (D.D.C. 2020) (“Citizens United I”). The Department has released four documents in full, released four documents with redactions, and withheld one document in full. In the Court’s prior opinion in this case, it denied Citizens United’s motion for summary judgment and granted the Department’s cross-motion for summary judgment as to most of the withholdings. Id. But the Court denied the Department’s motion for summary judgment with respect to two of the partially redacted documents, concluding that the Department had failed to explain why the redactions were proper. Id. at 24. The Court also denied summary judgment with respect to the document withheld in full because the Department had failed to explain why no part of the document could be released. Id. at 27. Seeking to address these deficiencies, the Department has now filed a renewed motion for summary judgment, supported by supplemental declarations providing additional detail about the withholdings. Dkt. 24. Citizens United opposes that motion and seeks in camera review of each of the redacted materials. Dkt. 25. In light of the additional detail and explanation that the Department has provided, the Court will GRANT the Department’s renewed motion for summary judgment. I. BACKGROUND Prompted by a press report that Steele “visited the State Department [in October 2016] [and] brief[ed] officials” there, Citizens United sent the Department a FOIA request in June 2018 seeking records relating to that meeting. Citizens United I, 460 F. Supp. 3d at 15 (quoting Dkt. 1-2 at 2). After the Department failed to provide a timely, substantive response, Citizens United brought this action to compel the release of responsive materials. Id. at 16; Dkt. 1. Several months later, the Department informed Citizens United that it had located nine responsive records, four of which it released in full, four of which it released with redactions, and one of which it withheld in full. Citizens United I, 460 F. Supp. 3d at 15; Dkt. 13-5 at 3 (1st Stein Decl. ¶¶ 8–10). Because several of the documents included “FBI information/equities,” the Department consulted the FBI about those records and withheld some content at the FBI’s request. Dkt. 13-4 at 3 (1st Seidel Decl. ¶ 6). In June 2019, Citizens United moved for summary judgment to compel the release of the withheld materials, Dkt. 11, and the Department cross- moved for summary judgment, Dkt. 13. The Court denied Citizens United’s motion for summary judgment and granted partial summary judgment in favor of the Department. The Court denied the Department’s motion for summary judgment, however, with respect to Documents 4, 7, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals