Farah v. United States Department of Justice

Background

Farah submitted a records request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to the Justice Department’s Executive Office for United States Attorneys. He sought records related to his federal prosecution and jury conviction for multiple conspiracy and terrorism charges, perjury, and false statements.

The agency produced redacted records in two categories: “Correspondence” and “Attorney Work Product.” It withheld the attorney-work-product records in full, except for copies of several court filings by Farah in the underlying criminal case. It attributed the withholding and redactions to FOIA Exemption 5, which covers certain protected interagency or intra-agency materials, including attorney work product and deliberative communications. It attributed correspondence redactions to Exemptions 6 and 7(C), which protect personal privacy in certain records.

The United States moved for summary judgment, asking the court to rule that the records were properly withheld and that no further disclosure was required. Farah also moved for summary judgment and requested, at minimum, private judicial review of the records to determine whether the withholdings were proper and whether additional separable material existed. The court ordered that private review before deciding the motions.

Court’s analysis

Under FOIA, the agency bears the burden of supporting its claimed exemptions. Even when an exemption applies to part of a document, the agency generally must disclose nonexempt portions unless they are inseparably connected with exempt material. For records withheld in full, the court must determine whether any reasonably separable material can be disclosed.

The court reviewed the Attorney Work Product file and found additional responsive, separable content on pages 19 and 38. The identified material described communications between Assistant United States Attorneys and Farah’s defense counsel. The court determined that these passages reported events that had already occurred rather than revealing legal analysis, mental impressions, attorney opinions, or trial strategy. The court therefore ordered those specified portions disclosed.

The court reached a different conclusion about the Correspondence file. It found that the redactions covered personal identifying information. It held that Farah’s interest in challenging his conviction or sentence did not outweigh the privacy interests protected by Exemptions 6 and 7(C). The court ordered no additional disclosure from that category.

Ruling

The court ordered the defendant to provide Farah an updated version of the responsive documents within five business days. On page 19 of the Attorney Work Product file, the updated version had to unredact the date of communication, the passage from “attorneys were told” to “Farah,” and the passage from “presented” to “proposal.” On page 38, it had to unredact the date of communication and the passage from “Murad Mohamed” to “weekend.”

Judge John R. Tunheim ordered that the defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment was GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. He also ordered that Farah’s Motion for Summary Judgment was GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The order stated that judgment should be entered accordingly.