UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) IBRAHIM ELGABROWNY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 17-cv-00066 (TSC) ) CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE ) AGENCY, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Ibrahim Elgabrowny, proceeding pro se, filed suit against the Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”), Department of Justice (“DOJ”), and Executive Office of United States Attorneys (“EOUSA”) (collectively “Defendants”). 1 Plaintiff alleges violations of the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, and Privacy Act (“Privacy Act” & “PA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552a. Sec. Am. Compl., ECF No. 29 at 1. 2 The DOJ, FBI, and EOUSA have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 45, (“DOJ Mot.”), and supporting pleadings. The CIA has also filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (“CIA MSJ”), ECF No. 47, and supporting pleadings. Plaintiff filed a combined Opposition and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, and several supplemental filings in 1 Plaintiff also sued the Department of State. However, the Department of State has been actively reviewing and disclosing records pursuant to Plaintiff’s FOIA/PA requests. See, e.g., ECF No. 43. Therefore, Plaintiff’s FOIA/PA Requests to the Department of State and any issues relating thereto are not yet ripe or properly before the court. 2 The court references the ECF-generated page numbers in citing to all of Plaintiff’s filings. 1 opposition. Also included in Plaintiff’s Opposition/Cross Motion are: a Motion to Strike Portions of the EOUSA (Stone) Declaration (“MTS Stone”), ECF No. 51 at 33–6, a Motion to Strike Portions of the FBI (Hardy) Declaration (“MTS Hardy”), id. at 37–40, a First Motion for In Camera Review & Discovery (“First Mot. In Cam.”), id. at 41–4, and a Second Motion for In Camera Review & Discovery (“Sec. Mot. In Cam.”), id. at 45–6. He has also filed a separate Third Motion for In Camera Review (“Third Mot. In Cam.”), ECF No. 56. Defendants argue that they conducted adequate searches for responsive documents, properly withheld responsive information under applicable exemptions, and satisfied their segregation obligations under FOIA. For the reasons stated herein, FBI’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED, CIA’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part without prejudice, and EOUSA’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED, in part with prejudice and in part without prejudice. His remaining Motions and requests for relief are DENIED. II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff’s FOIA/PA Requests primarily concern his and others’ prosecution, convictions, and the underlying criminal investigation related to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Sec. Am. Compl. at 4, 9–10, 18; Pl.’s Opp. at 5–6; United States v. Elgabrowny, et al., No. 93-cr- 00181 (MBM) (S.D.N.Y. filed 1993). FBI FOIA/Privacy Act Request Nos. 1341446-000 & 1341446-001 The FBI received Plaintiff’s first FOIA Request, with a demand for expedited processing and fee waiver, by email dated November 12, 2015. Hardy Decl. ¶ 5. He requested [sic]: 2 Copy of the FBI Special Agent [Bradley J. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals