UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA REPORTERS COMMITTEE FOR : FREEDOM OF THE PRESS, : : Plaintiff, : Civil Action No.: 17-1701 (RC) : v. : Re Document Nos.: 19, 21 : FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, : et al., : : Defendants. : MEMORANDUM OPINION DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT; GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT I. INTRODUCTION In this lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, Plaintiff the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (“RCFP”) challenges the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (“FBI’s”) response to a request for records relating to the FBI’s impersonation of documentary filmmakers and film crews. In early 2017, it was publicly disclosed that the FBI had impersonated a documentary film crew to investigate cattle rancher Cliven D. Bundy (“Bundy”) and his followers following a 2014 armed standoff between Bundy and law enforcement. RCFP subsequently filed an eight-part FOIA request seeking, inter alia, the production of records referencing any other instance of impersonation of a documentary filmmaker or film crew by the FBI in connection with a criminal investigation since 2010 (“Item 6”), and records of professional credentials, websites, and business cards used by FBI agents in connection with the impersonation of documentary filmmakers or film crews since 2010 (“Item 7”). RCFP filed suit against the FBI and the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) in August 2017 after the FBI failed to release any documents in response to its FOIA request. The FBI subsequently issued a so-called “Glomar” response pursuant to FOIA Exemption 7(E) as to all records responsive to Items 6 and 7 and not related to the criminal investigations of Bundy and of one of his supporters, Gregory Burleson (“Burleson”), refusing to confirm or deny the existence of any such records. Defendants now move for summary judgment solely on the issue of whether the FBI’s Glomar response is appropriate, while RCFP cross-moves for summary judgment on the same issue. Because it finds that the impersonation of documentary film workers is an enforcement technique commonly known to the public, and that acknowledging the existence or absence of records would not reduce or nullify the effectiveness of that technique, the Court denies Defendants’ motion and grants RCFP’s cross-motion. II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. The FBI’s Impersonation of News Media While law enforcement impersonation of journalists is a practice that has been documented for decades, the FBI’s impersonation of news media has received increased scrutiny in recent years. In 2014, it was widely reported that the FBI had impersonated an Associated Press (“AP”) editor in a 2007 investigation of a Seattle high school student suspected of sending bomb threats. Compl. ¶ 13, ECF No. 1; see, e.g., FBI Says It Faked AP Story to Catch Bomb Suspect, Associated Press, Oct. 28, 2014, Declaration of Katie Townsend (“Townsend Decl.”) Ex. N, at 147, 1 ECF No. 21-3. 2 The story generated significant backlash, and AP’s general 1 Because of the volume of documents filed by the parties as ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals