UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) DANIEL J. STOTTER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 14-cv-2156 (KBJ) ) UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR ) INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, ) ) Defendant. ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Daniel Stotter submitted a document request under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, to the United States Agency for International Development (“USAID”) on April 10, 2014, seeking records that describe “any USAID or United States financial grants or funding directed to any Pakistan based media organizations for the purpose of supporting Pakistan related media projects[,]” from January 1, 2007, through the time of the request. (Am. Compl., ECF No. 4, ¶ 13.) Eight months later, on December 21, 2014, Stotter filed the instant FOIA lawsuit, claiming that USAID had “fail[ed] to provide [him] with all non-exempt responsive records for his April 10, 2014[,] FOIA request.” (Id. ¶ 47.) 1 1 Stotter’s complaint originally named as co-defendants the Broadcasting Board of Governors and the Department of State. (See Compl., ECF No. 1, at 1.) These defendants have since been dismissed from the lawsuit due to their settlements with Stotter on October 12, 2016, and November 18, 2016, respectively. (See Notice of Settlement by Broadcasting Board of Governors, ECF No. 45; Notice of Settlement by Department of State, ECF No. 49.) 1 Before this Court at present are the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. (See Mem. in Supp. of Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. (“Def.’s Mot.”), ECF No. 17-1; Pl.’s Mot. for Partial Summ. J. and Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. (“Pl.’s Mot.”), ECF No. 21.) USAID has now produced all of the records it deems responsive to Stotter’s FOIA request—totaling 1705 pages (see Def.’s Mot. at 11)—and the crux of the parties’ dispute is whether the agency was justified in employing FOIA Exemption 6 , as well as Exemption 4, to redact some of the responsive documents (see Pl.’s Mot. at 7–17). 2 In order to resolve these issues, Stotter asks the Court to conduct an in camera review of the responsive records. (See id. at 17–18.) For the reasons explained below, this Court finds that USAID has appropriately relied on Exemption 6 to justify certain redactions, which clearly relate to sensitive personal information that the agency is entitled to withhold, and the agency has also complied with the FOIA’s segregability requirement with respect to Exemption 6 such that no in camera review is warranted. However, due to an intervening Supreme Court opinion that underscores the need for supplemental briefing and/or declarations, this Court is unable to resolve the parties’ dispute regarding USAID’s invocation of Exemption 4 based on the present record. Accordingly, USAID’s motion for summary judgment will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and Stotter’s motion for partial summary judgment will be DENIED. A separate order consistent with the memorandum opinion will follow. 2 Page-number citations to the documents that the parties and the Court have fil ed refer to the page numbers that the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals