UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA _________________________________________ ) KING & SPALDING LLP, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 16-cv-01616 (APM) ) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ) HUMAN SERVICES, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) _________________________________________ ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION This case concerns three Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) requests submitted by Plaintiff King & Spalding LLP to Defendants U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) and U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) (collectively “Defendants”). The court already has ruled on one round of summary judgment motions and, at this stage in the litigation, the only remaining issues pertain to the FOIA requests directed to DOJ. Specifically, Plaintiff challenges DOJ’s search for responsive records, as well as its withholding of certain documents under Exemptions 6, 7(C), and 7(D). Before the court are the parties’ renewed cross-motions for summary judgment. Upon review of the parties’ briefs and the present record, the court grants in part and denies in part Defendants’ Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff’s Renewed Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. II. BACKGROUND A. Plaintiff’s FOIA Requests In 2012, the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia (“USAO-DC”) initiated a criminal and civil investigation of Abiomed, Inc., a medical device company. See Pl.’s Cross-Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 21 [hereinafter Pl.’s Cross-Mot.], Pl.’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [hereinafter Pl.’s Stmt.], ¶¶ 36–37. The investigation centered on marketing and labeling practices for a particular medical device, Impella 2.5, and ended three years later without any enforcement action. See id. The investigation may have commenced when an anonymous source, acting through a private lawyer, disclosed records pertaining to Abiomed to the USAO-DC. See Pl.’s Cross-Mot. at 17 1; cf. Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 20 [hereinafter Defs.’ Mot.], Decl. of Tricia Francis, ECF No. 20-2 [hereinafter Francis Decl.], ¶¶ 13– 15, 18; Defs.’ Combined Opp’n to Cross-Mot. & Reply in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 25 [hereinafter Defs.’ Initial Reply], Second Decl. of Tricia Francis, ECF No. 25-2 [hereinafter Second Francis Decl.], Corrected & Suppl. Vaughn Index for EOUSA, ECF No. 25-2, at 17–26 [hereinafter EOUSA Vaughn Index]. Abiomed suspects that one of its competitors, Maquet, is the unnamed source. See Pl.’s Cross-Mot. at 32–33. After the investigation closed, Abiomed sought to learn about how it started. On April 14, 2016, counsel for Abiomed, Plaintiff King & Spalding LLP, filed three separate FOIA requests with HHS and two subcomponents of DOJ: the Civil Division and the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (“EOUSA”). See Compl., ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 9–11; Defs.’ Mot., Defs.’ Statement of Material Facts Not in Genuine Dispute [hereinafter Defs.’ Stmt.], ¶ 1; Pl.’s Stmt. ¶ 1. In each 1 Unless otherwise noted, citations to the parties’ pleadings, and any exhibits thereto, are to the page numbers electronically generated by CM/ECF. 2 request, Plaintiff sought documents concerning Abiomed. See generally Defs.’ Stmt. ¶¶ 2, 10, 14; Pl.’s Stmt. ¶¶ 2, 10, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals