Huddleston v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

United States District Court
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION

BRIAN HUDDLESTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE,

Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 4:20-cv-447
Judge Mazzant

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding FOIA
Exemption 7(A) (Dkt. # 148). Having considered the motion and the relevant pleadings, the Court
finds that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding FOIA Exemption 7(A) should
be DENIED.
BACKGROUND

This Memorandum Opinion and Order arises in the context of Freedom of Information
Act litigation between Plaintiff Brian Huddleston (“Huddleston”) and Defendants Federal Bureau
of Investigation (the “FBI”) and the United States Department of Justice (the “DOJ,” and
collectively, the “Government”). The Court will not belabor the case’s background here because
it has already been discussed in detail in the Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order from
September 29, 2022 (the “2022 Order”) (Dkt. #70) and the Court’s Memorandum Opinion and
Order from November 28, 2023 (the “2023 Order”) (Dkt. # 107).
Case 4:20-cv-00447-ALM Document 175 Filed 08/15/24 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
On November 28, 2023, the Court entered the 2023 Order finding that the FBI improperly
withheld Seth Rich’s work laptop, the DVD, the tape drive (collectively, the “Work Laptop”),
and (the compact disc containing images of) Seth Rich’s personal laptop (the “Personal Laptop”)
(Dkt. #136 at pp. 15, 19–20). The Court ordered the Government to produce a Vaughn index
addressing the information it possessed on the Work Laptop and the Personal Laptop (Dkt. #136
at pp. 24–25). However, the FBI would have to process hundreds of thousands of documents
(within the Work Laptop and the Personal Laptop) to comply with the 2023 Order (Dkt. #136 at
p. 23).
On February 8, 2024, the Government filed the present motion for summary judgment
(Dkt. #148). This motion only raises one issue: whether the Government may categorically
withhold the Work Laptop and the Personal Laptop pursuant to FOIA Exemption 7(A) (Dkt. #148
at p. 1). On March 7, 2024, Huddleston filed his response (Dkt. # 154). On March 14, 2024, the
Government filed its reply (Dkt. # 156). On April 4, 2024, Huddleston filed his sur-reply
(Dkt. # 162).
LEGAL STANDARD

The purpose of summary judgment is to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims
or defenses. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323–24 (1986). Summary judgment is proper
under Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “if the movant shows that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
F
ED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). A dispute about a material fact is genuine when “the evidence is such that a
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Substantive law identifies which facts are material. Id. The trial court “must
Case 4:20-cv-00447-ALM Document 175 Filed 08/15/24 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
resolve all reasonable doubts in favor of the party opposing the motion for summary judgment.”
Casey Enters., Inc. v. Am. Hardware Mut. Ins. Co., 655 F.2d 598, 602 (5th Cir. 1981).
The party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of informing the court of its
motion and identifying “depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or
declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions,
interrogatory answers, or other materials” that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of
material fact. F
ED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)(1)(A); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. If the movant bears the burden
of proof on a claim or defense for which it is moving for summary judgment, it must come forward
with evidence that establishes “beyond peradventure all of the essential elements of the claim or
defense.” Fontenot v. Upjohn Co., 780 F.2d 1190, 1194 (5th Cir. 1986). Where the nonmovant bears
the burden of proof, the movant may discharge the burden by showing that there is an absence of
evidence to support the nonmovant’s case. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325; Byers v. Dall. Morning News,
Inc., 209 F.3d 419, 424 (5th Cir. 2000). Once the movant has carried its burden, the nonmovant
must “respond to the motion for summary judgment by setting forth particular facts indicating
there is a genuine issue for trial.” Byers, 209 F.3d at 424 (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248–49). A
nonmovant must present affirmative evidence to defeat a properly supported motion for summary
judgment. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 257. Mere denials of material facts, unsworn allegations, or
arguments and assertions in briefs or legal memoranda will not suffice to carry this burden. Rather,
the Court requires “significant probative evidence” from the nonmovant to dismiss a request for
summary judgment. In re Mun. Bond Reporting Antitrust Litig., 672 F.2d 436, 440 (5th Cir. 1982)
(quoting Ferguson v. Nat’l Broad. Co., 584 F.2d 111, 114 (5th Cir. 1978)). The Court must consider
Case 4:20-cv-00447-ALM Document 175 Filed 08/15/24 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
all of the evidence but “refrain from making any credibility determinations or weighing the
evidence.”
ANALYSIS

The Court’s analysis begins and ends with the second element of categorical withholding
under FOIA Exemption 7(A). The Government does not satisfy the second element, which
requires a document-by-document review in order to assign documents to the proper category.
Categorical withholding is often appropriate under FOIA Exemption 7(A). Citizens for
Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 746 F.3d 1082, 1098 (D.C. Cir. 2014).
However, an agency must satisfy three elements to categorically withhold documents. First, “it
must define its categories functionally.” Id. (quoting Bevis v. Dep’t of State, 801 F.2d 1386, 1389
(D.C. Cir. 1986)). Second, “it must conduct a document-by-document review in order to assign
documents to the proper category.” Id. (quoting Bevis, 801 F.2d at 1389). Third, “it must explain
to the court how the release of each category would interfere with enforcement proceedings.” Id.
(quoting Bevis, 801 F.2d at 1390).
The Government argues that “[Huddleston’s] challenge to the first two elements of
categorical withholding fails” (Dkt. #156 at p. 3). The Government claims that “[i]n the context
of Exemption 7(A), document-by-document analysis is not always required and an agency may
satisfy its burden with a more generalized showing when publicly revealing more details about the
documents could itself jeopardize the investigation or enforcement proceedings” (Dkt. #156 at
p. 4). Further, the Government asserts that “[a] requirement to separately assign a functional
category to each file on the Personal Laptop and Work Laptop would require the type of precise
Case 4:20-cv-00447-ALM Document 175 Filed 08/15/24 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
description of records that would disclose non-public information and raise the same concerns
regarding interference” (Dkt. # 156 at p. 5).
Huddleston responds that the Government has not met the second requirement of
categorical withholding (Dkt. #162 at pp. 4 –5). Huddleston claims that “the [Government] ha[s]
not examined the documents at all”(Dkt. #162 at p. 4).
Under categorical withholding, an agency may provide descriptions of categories of
documents, rather than a description of every specific document being withheld. Manning v, U.S.
Dep’t of Just., 234 F. Supp. 3d 26, 35 (D.D.C. 2017). However, the agency still “must conduct a
document-by-document review in order to assign documents to the proper category.” Citizens for
Responsibility & Ethics in Wash., 746 F.3d at 1098 (emphasis added).
The Government has not put forward any evidence suggesting that it has conducted a
document-by-document review of the documents within the Work Laptop and the Personal Laptop
in order to assign the documents to the proper category. The Work Laptop and the Personal Laptop
collectively contain hundreds of thousands of documents (Dkt. #136 at p. 23). On October 27,
2022, the Government indicated to the Court that “the FBI has never extracted the data from the
[Personal Laptop] and never processed the information contained on the [Personal Laptop]”
(Dkt. #73 at p. 2). No evidence in the record suggests that this situation has changed.
Even if a document-by-document review may require arduous efforts by the Government,
it remains a requirement of categorical withholding. See Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash.,
746 F.3d at 1098; Gavin v. S.E.C., No. Civ. 04–4522, 2006 WL 208783, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 26,
2006) (“It does not obviate the requirement that an agency conduct a document-by-document
review—even if that review may require arduous efforts by the agency. The SEC must conduct a
Case 4:20-cv-00447-ALM Document 175 Filed 08/15/24 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
document-by-document review to discern whether documents or portions of the documents fall
outside the functional categories.”); Inst. For Just. & Hum. Rts. v. Exec. Office of the U.S. Att’y, No.
C 96–1469, 1998 WL 164965, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 1998) (“To comply with FOIA, the EOUSA
must conduct a document-by-document review and provide affidavits attesting that the review
took place.”). The Government has not satisfied this second requirement. Therefore, the
Government is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
In the 2023 Order, the Court ordered the Government to produce Vaughn indexes for the
Work Laptop and the Personal Laptop (Dkt. #136 at pp. 24–25). Regardless of whether the
Government produces the Vaughn indexes or files another motion for summary judgment
regarding the documents within the Work Laptop and the Personal Laptop, the Government must
first conduct a document-by-document review of the documents within the Work Laptop and the
Personal Laptop. The Court recognizes that such a review of hundreds of thousands of documents
will take a large amount of time. Therefore, the Government must either produce the Vaughn
indexes or file a motion for summary judgment regarding the documents within the Work Laptop
and the Personal Laptop by February 7, 2025.
CONCLUSION

It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding
FOIA Exemption 7(A) (Dkt. #148) is DENIED.
It is further ORDERED the Government shall conduct and complete by February 7, 2025
a document-by-document review of the information it possesses on the compact disk containing
images of Seth Rich’s personal laptop, Seth Rich’s work laptop, the DVD, and the tape drive that
is responsive to Plaintiff’s FOIA requests.
Case 4:20-cv-00447-ALM Document 175 Filed 08/15/24 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
It is further ORDERED the Government shall either (1) produce Vaughn indexes
addressing the information it possesses on the compact disk containing images of Seth Rich’s
personal laptop, Seth Rich’s work laptop, the DVD, and the tape drive that is responsive to
Plaintiff’s FOIA requests by February 7, 2025; or (2) file a motion for summary judgment
regarding the information it possesses on the compact disk containing images of Seth Rich’s
personal laptop, Seth Rich’s work laptop, the DVD, and the tape drive that is responsive to
Plaintiff’s FOIA requests by February 7, 2025.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case 4:20-cv-00447-ALM Document 175 Filed 08/15/24 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>