UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HASSAN ALI PEJOUHESH, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 17-1684 (RDM) UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This is the third summary judgment decision in what should have been a straightforward FOIA case. In 2016 and 2017, Plaintiff Hassan Ali Pejouhesh submitted two FOIA requests to the U.S. Postal Inspection Service—the U.S. Postal Service’s law enforcement division—seeking records related to his prosecution and conviction for aiding and abetting bank fraud, possession of stolen mail, and aggravated identity theft. The Postal Service located 61 pages of records responsive to Plaintiff’s FOIA requests. It referred seven of those pages to other agencies, released 37 pages with redactions pursuant to FOIA Exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C), and withheld 17 pages (constituting the “Postal Inspection Service Search Warrant/Arrest Operation Plan” (“Operation Plan”)) in their entirety pursuant to FOIA Exemptions (b)(6), (b)(7)(C), and (b)(7)(E). Dkt. 16-3 at 3–5 (Mungin Decl. ¶¶ 6–10). Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this FOIA action, challenging the Postal Service’s withholdings. 1 1 Plaintiff also challenged the Postal Service’s document retention policy. That issue is no longer before the Court. See Dkt. 22 at 5–7 (holding that Plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the policy). To date, the Court has granted summary judgment to the Postal Service on every issue presented in this case, with three exceptions. See Dkt. 22; Minute Order (Nov. 2, 2020). First, the Postal Service failed adequately to explain its decision to redact “third-party statements” from certain responsive records. Dkt. 22 at 12–14. Second, the Postal Service failed adequately to explain its invocation of FOIA Exemption 7(E) to withhold the Operation Plan documents in their entirety. Id. at 14–15. Finally, the Postal Service “failed to carry its burden of showing that it released all reasonably segregable material.” Id. at 16. The Postal Service now moves for summary judgment with respect to the three remaining issues. Dkt. 78. Plaintiff also moves for summary judgment, arguing that the Postal Service has unlawfully withheld additional documents related to his prosecution—documents that were not among the 61 pages of records that the Postal Service described in its Vaughn index. 2 Dkt. 63. For the following reasons, the Court will GRANT the Postal Service’s motion in part and DENY it in part; DENY Plaintiff’s cross-motion; and ORDER the Postal Service to file a status report on or before March 28, 2022, explaining whether the Affidavit in Support of an Arrest Warrant, withheld in part pursuant to Exemptions 6 and 7(C), should be released under the public domain doctrine. A. The Postal Service’s Motion for Summary Judgment The Postal Service’s motion for summary judgment addresses the three issues that the Court left open in its two prior decisions. See Dkt. 22; Minute Order (Nov. 2, 2020). As the Court explained in both decisions, more information was needed to determine whether the Postal Service (1) properly invoked FOIA Exemption 7(C) to redact “third-party statements;” (2) 2 Plaintiff’s motion is styled as a motion to compel …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals