The Center for Investigative Reporting v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

Background

The Center for Investigative Reporting submitted a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, seeking records about the August 31, 2002 attack in Papua, Indonesia, in which two American citizens, Ricky Lynn Spier and Leon Edwin “Ted” Burgon, were killed. The request also sought records concerning Anthonius Wamang, whom the opinion identifies as an Indonesian citizen and Papuan separatist fighter. The opinion states that Wamang was convicted of the murders in Indonesia, is serving a life sentence there, and is the subject of a pending indictment in the United States.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation identified 24,400 pages of documents and 47 hours of video and audio. It released 398 pages and approximately 51 minutes of media, withholding the remaining material under FOIA Exemption 7(A). That exemption covers law-enforcement records when disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings. The FBI also invoked other exemptions, but the court ultimately did not need to decide whether those exemptions applied.

The parties did not dispute the adequacy of the FBI's production generally. Their dispute concerned the FBI's withholding under Exemption 7(A). The Center argued that the FBI's explanations were too general and that the court should review the records privately, known as an in-camera review.

Analysis

The court applied the summary-judgment standard, under which judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In a FOIA case, the agency must show that a claimed exemption applies and that it disclosed reasonably separable, non-exempt portions of the records.

The court concluded that Exemption 7(A) applied. First, the parties agreed that the records were compiled for a law-enforcement purpose. Second, the court found a pending or prospective law-enforcement proceeding because the United States had charged Wamang with murder and related charges, obtained an arrest warrant, and intended to prosecute him after his release from Indonesian custody. The court rejected the Center's contention that Wamang's Indonesian life sentence made prosecution in the United States legally impossible.

Third, the court found that the records related to the pending or prospective proceeding. Fourth, it found that the FBI had shown that disclosure could harm the investigation. The FBI reviewed each withheld document, grouped the documents into 42 types and three functional categories, and explained how disclosure could interfere with enforcement proceedings, including by identifying sources and witnesses. The court held that the FBI was not required to provide a separate factual showing for every withheld document.

The court also rejected the Center's argument that information available through Wamang's public trial, news sources, leaks, Indonesian police records, or an FBI awards ceremony had lost its exemption. The court said the Center had not identified specific information in the public domain that duplicated the withheld information or shown an official disclosure by the FBI. The awards-ceremony material was only a high-level summary and did not duplicate the withheld records with sufficient specificity.

Finally, the court found that the FBI had satisfied FOIA's segregability requirement. The FBI's declarations described the withheld material, explained the application of Exemption 7(A), identified responsive material that was public and non-exempt, and showed that the FBI had released reasonably separable portions. Because Exemption 7(A) applied, the court did not address the FBI's other asserted exemptions.

Disposition

Judge Laurel Beeler granted the Federal Bureau of Investigation's motion for summary judgment and denied The Center for Investigative Reporting's cross-motion for summary judgment.