Buckley v. U.S. Dep't of Justice

DECISION and ORDER JURISDICTION On August 16, 2019, the parties to this action consented pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(c), to proceed before the undersigned. The matter is presently before the court on motions for summary judgment filed by Defendant on December 20, 2019 (Dkt. 13), and by Plaintiff on March 5, 2020 (Dkt. 19). BACKGROUND Plaintiff Nathaniel J. Buckley (“Plaintiff” or “Buckley”), commenced this action pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA” or “the Act”), 5 U.S.C. §552 et seq., on March 8, 2019, seeking an injunction and other relief, including the disclosure and release of agency records withheld by Defendant United States Department of Justice (“Defendant” or “DOJ”) in response to Plaintiff’s requests for information pertaining to a two-year investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) of Plaintiff and Leslie James Pickering (“Pickering”), and their possible involvement in domestic terrorism and an eco-terrorism¹ conspiracy. On December 20, 2019, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 13) (“Defendant’s Motion”), a Memorandum of Law (Dkt. 14) (“Defendant’s Memorandum”), the Declaration of David M. Hardy (Dkt. 15) (“Hardy Declaration”), attaching exhibits A through L (Dkt. 15-1) (“Defendant’s Exh(s). __”), and a Statement of Undisputed Facts (Dkt. 16) (“Defendant’s Statement of Facts”). Also filed as Defendant’s Exh. L (Dkt. 15-1 at 51-56), is the so-called “Vaughn Index” the requested government agency is required to furnish in responding to a FOIA request for records, purporting to identify each piece of information responsive to a FOIA request, as well as whether each responsive piece was released in full (“RIF”), released in part (“RIP”), or withheld in full (“WIF”), and the asserted reason why any information was withheld either in full or in part.² On March 5, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 19) (“Plaintiff’s Motion”), the Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 20) (“Plaintiff’s Memorandum”), the Affidavit of Nathaniel J. Buckley (Dkt. 21) (“Plaintiff’s Affidavit”), attaching exhibits 1 through 5 (Dkts. 21-1 through 21-5) (“Plaintiff’s Exh(s). __”), and Plaintiff’s Statement of Material, Undisputed Facts and Response to the FBI’s Statement of Undisputed Facts Pursuant to Local Rule 56 (Dkt. 22) (“Plaintiff’s Statement of Facts”). In further support of Defendant’s Motion, Defendant filed on August 28, 2020, the Reply Memorandum of Law (Dkt. 28) (“Defendant’s Reply”), and the Declaration of Michael G. Seidel (Dkt. 29) (“Seidel Declaration”). Oral argument was deemed unnecessary. Based on the following, Defendant’s Motion should be GRANTED; Plaintiff’s Motion should be DENIED. FACTS³ Plaintiff and Pickering are co-owners of Burning Books (“Burning Books”), an independent book store located in Buffalo, New York (“Buffalo”), which Plaintiff describes as “specializing in social justice struggles and state repression.” Plaintiff’s Affidavit 2. Burning Books has hosted events featuring political activists and journalists, and screenings of film documentaries on such topics as civil rights and environmental concerns, which events were monitored by undercover FBI agents and informants. Plaintiff is an associate of Friends of the Ancient Forest, and has participated in protests to prevent logging in Zoar Valley, a deep canyon river valley located between Cattaraugus and Erie Counties in western New York, and in “ARISSA,” a community activist organization on Buffalo’s west side.⁴ In 2011, Plaintiff was criminally prosecuted in Buffalo City Court for participating in an anti-war protest,⁵ with stories about Plaintiff’s arrest and subsequent trial featured in local news media outlets including The Buffalo News, a local newspaper of general circulation, radio station WBFO, and television news station WIVB. Commencing in January 2012 and continuing through January 2014, Plaintiff was the subject of a federal ecoterrorism conspiracy investigation based on Plaintiff’s association with Pickering. In connection with this investigation, Plaintiff sought to obtain from the FBI copies of all records pertaining to Plaintiff and that are the subject of the instant action. Plaintiff suspects that some of the information that may be present in the FBI’s records would pertain to statements made by Amy Upham (“Upham”) and Selena K. Lloyd (“Lloyd”), both of whom were tenants in the apartment located above Burning Books from April 2011 through November 2011, and neither of whom personally liked Plaintiff or Pickering. Plaintiff further maintains that Lloyd’s animus toward Plaintiff was so great that Crisis Services, Inc. (“Crisis Services”), warned Plaintiff that Lloyd, upon being released from Erie County Medical Center’s Mental Health Unit, made death threats against Plaintiff. With regard to Plaintiff’s attempts to obtain the information from the FBI, by letter dated February 9, 2016 (“FOIA Request”),⁶ Plaintiff, through his legal counsel, Michael Kuzma, Esq. (“Kuzma”), requested any and all records that were prepared, received, transmitted, collected, and/or maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Terrorist Screening Center, the National Joint Terrorism Task Force, or any Joint Terrorism Task Force relating or referring to Nathaniel J. Buckley. FOIA Request at 1 (italics in original). The FOIA Request was accompanied by the required DOJ Certificate of Identity, Form DOJ-361 (“Certificate of Identity forms”), completed with Plaintiff’s information and signature. FOIA Request at 5. By letter dated February 23, 2016 (“February 23, 2016 Letter”),⁷ the FBI acknowledged receipt of the FOIA Request, assigning it Freedom of Information/Privacy Acts (“FOIPA”) Request Number 1344909-000 (“First FOIPA”). By letter to the DOJ dated February 6, 2017 (“February 6, 2017 Letter”),⁸ Plaintiff advised Defendant had failed to provide records responsive to the First FOIPA within 20 days of receiving the FOIA Request, and that Plaintiff was treating the DOJ’s failure to timely respond as a denial of the FOIA Request. By letter dated February 21, 2017 (“February 21, 2017 Letter”),⁹ the DOJ acknowledged receipt of the February 6, 2017 Letter and advised it was being considered an appeal, assigning it number DOJ-AP-2017-002444 (“First Appeal”). By letter dated March 21, 2017 (“March 21, 2017 Letter”),¹⁰ the DOJ’s Office of Information Policy (“OIP”), advised Kuzma that the First Appeal was without merit because it was filed prior to any adverse opinion being made regarding Plaintiff’s FOIA Request, but that the OIP had contacted the FBI and the FOIA Request was being processed. On November 20, 2017, the FBI released records responsive to Plaintiff’s FOIA Request (“First Records Release”),¹¹ advising 16 records were located and reviewed, with 14 of the records released in full or in part, explaining the withheld records were protected from disclosure pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 3, 6, 7(c), 7(D), and 7(E),¹² but that Plaintiff could appeal the FBI’s decision by filing an administrative appeal with the DOJ’s OIP within 90 days or by seeking dispute resolution through the Office of Government Information Services (“OGIS”) or the FBI’s FOIA Public Liaison. By letter dated February 6, 2018 (“Second Appeal”),¹³ Plaintiff appealed to OIP for assistance with the FBI’s alleged inadequate search and failure to reasonably segregate portions of the First Records Release. Included with the appeal were additional completed Certification of Identity forms authorizing the release to Kuzma of any information responsive to Plaintiff’s FOIA Request pertaining to John Buckley, Sarah Buckley, Daire Brian Irwin, Carrie Ann Nader, Leslie James Pickering, Theresa Baker-Pickering, Sean Francis Raess, and Michael Kuzma. See Dkt. 15-1 at 22-29. On February 20, 2018, the OIP acknowledged receipt of the Second Appeal which was assigned number DOJ-AP-208-00286.¹⁴ By letter dated August 9, 2018 (“August 9, 2018 Letter”),¹⁵ DOJ OIP advised Plaintiff of the FBI’s actions on Plaintiff’s FOIA Request, i.e., the documents, with some redactions, included in the First Records Release, were affirmed, and that the FBI properly withheld certain information as protected from disclosure pursuant to FOIA exemptions. The OIP also confirmed the FBI conducted an adequate and reasonable search for records responsive to Plaintiff’s FOIA Request, advising if Plaintiff remained dissatisfied with the OIP’s action on Plaintiff’s Second Appeal, Plaintiff could commence an action in federal district court pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §552(a)(4)(B). Accordingly, on March 8, 2019, Plaintiff commenced the instant action. On June 12, 2019, in response to a request from the FBI, Plaintiff provided newly completed and signed DOJ-361 forms authorizing the release to Plaintiff of information pertaining to John Buckley, Sarah Buckley, Daire Brian Irwin, Carrie Ann Nader, Leslie James Pickering, Theresa Baker-Pickering, Sean Francis Raess, and Michael Kuzma.¹⁶ By letter to Kuzma dated July 12, 2019 (“Second Records Release”),¹⁷ the FBI advised it located and reviewed 58 pages of records responsive to Plaintiff’s FOIA Request, releasing 54 pages in full or in part, with certain information withheld pursuant to FOIA exemptions 3, 6, 7(C), 7(D), and 7(E). In connection with the pending motions, explanations as to how Plaintiff’s FOIA Request was processed are provided by David M. Hardy (“Hardy”), and Michael G. Seidel (“Seidel”). Hardy was the Section Chief of the Record/Information Dissemination Section (“RIDS”), Information Management Division (“IMD”), in Winchester, Virginia, when the search for records responsive to Plaintiff’s FOIA Request occurred. Hardy Declaration 1. Hardy was succeeded by Seidel who was Assistant Section Chief of RIDS when the relevant records search occurred, becoming Acting Section Chief May 26, 2020 until July 26, 2020, when Seidel became Section Chief of RIDS, IMD, FBI. Seidel Declaration 1. According to Hardy, in fulfilling its integrated missions and functions as a law enforcement, counterterrorism, and intelligence agency, the FBI compiles and maintains in the Central Records System (“CRS”) records consisting of applicants, investigative, intelligence, personnel, administrative, and general files. The CRS maintains records for the entire FBI organization including FBI Headquarters (“FBIHQ”), FBI Field Offices, and FBI Legal Attached Officers (“Legats”) worldwide. CRS files are numerically sequenced and organized according to designated subject categories referred to as “FBI classifications.” As each FBI case file is opened, the file is assigned a Universal Case File Number (“UCFN”) consisting of three sequential components including (1) the CRS file classification number; (2) the abbreviation of the FBI Office of Origin (“OO”) initiating the file; and (3) the assigned individual case file number for that particular subject matter. Within each case file, certain documents of interest are “serialized” i.e., assigned a document number in the order in which the document is added to the file, typically in chronological order. Records are located within the CRS through its general indices with the files alphabetized according to subject matters including individuals, organizations, events and subjects of investigative interest. Entries in the general indices fall into two categories including (1) a main entry created for each individual or non-individual that is the subject or focus of an investigation, and (2) a reference or “cross-reference” entry created for individuals or non-individuals associated with a case, but not the main subject or focus of an investigation. Reference subjects typically are not identified in the case title of a file. CRS indexing information is done by FBI investigators who have the discretion to deem information sufficiently significant to warrant indexing for future retrieval. Thus, not every individual name, organization, event, or other subject matter is separately indexed in the general indices. In 1995, Automatic Case Support (“ACS”), an electronic, integrated case management system was implemented with CRS records converted from automated systems previously utilized by the FBI into a single, consolidated case management system accessible by all FBI offices. ACS searches were conducted through use of the Universal Index (“UNI”) which provides an electronic means to search by indexing pertinent investigative information including such identifying information as name, date of birth, race, sex, locality, Social Security Number, address, and date of an event. On July 1, 2012, the Sentinel system (“Sentinel”) became the effective FBI-wide case management system. Sentinel includes the same automated applications utilized in ACS, and also provides a web-based interface to FBI users. Sentinel did not replace ACS, however, until August 1, 2018, when ACS data was migrated into Sentinel including ACS indices data and digitalized investigative records. Sentinel also retains the index search methodology and function whereby the CRS is queried via Sentinel for pertinent indexed main or reference entries in case files. As such, CRS index data from the UNI application previously searched via ACS is now searched within Sentinel using the “ACS Search” function. Accordingly, upon receiving FOIPA requests for information on subject matters predating implementation of Sentinel, RIDS begins its searching efforts by conducting index searches via Sentinel’s ACS Search function, followed by an index search of Sentinel records to ensure any subsequent records or data relevant to the FOIPA request are located. The CRS automated indices are updated daily with searchable material newly indexed in Sentinel. Each page of the records responsive to Plaintiff’s FOIA Request is Bates-stamped. Defendant provides a “Vaughn Index”¹⁸ listing a description of each document with the associated Bates-stamped page number, and a chart indicating for each record whether it was released in full, released in part, or withheld in full, as well as on which FOIA Exemption Defendant relies to support withholding the information. The Vaughn Index shows Defendant identified 58 records responsive to Plaintiff’s FOIA Request, of which three were RIF, 51 were WIP, and 4 were WIF. The 58 records appear in 23 separately “serialized” documents (“serials”), i.e., documents arranged in chronological order. DISCUSSION 1. Summary Judgment Both Plaintiff and Defendant move for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s challenges to the adequacy of the documents provided in response to Plaintiff’s FOIA Request in the First and Second Records Releases. Summary judgment of a claim or defense will be granted when a moving party demonstrates that there are no genuine issues as to any material fact and that a moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a) and (b); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250-51 (1986); Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir. 2003). The court is required to construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, Collazo v. Pagano, 656 F.3d 131, 134 (2d Cir. 2011), and summary judgment may not be granted based on a credibility assessment. See Reyes v. Lincoln Automotive Financial Services, 861 F.3d 51, 55 (2d Cir. 2017) (“Adverse parties commonly advance conflicting versions of the events throughout a course of litigation. In such instances on summary judgment, the court is required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all permissible factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought.” (citations, quotation marks, and brackets omitted)). The party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of establishing the nonexistence of any genuine issue of material fact and if there is any evidence in the record based upon any source from which a reasonable inference in the non-moving party’s favor may be drawn, a moving party cannot obtain a summary judgment. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322; see Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247-48 (“summary judgment will not lie if the dispute about a material fact is “genuine,” that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party”). “A fact is material if it ‘might affect the outcome of the suit under governing law.’” Roe v. City of Waterbury, 542 F.3d 31, 35 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248). “[T]he evidentiary burdens that the respective parties will bear at trial guide district courts in their determination of summary judgment motions.” Brady v. Town of Colchester, 863 F.2d 205, 211 (2d Cir. 1988)). A defendant is entitled to summary judgment where “‘the plaintiff has failed to come forth with evidence sufficient to permit a reasonable juror to return a verdict in his or her favor on’” an essential element of a claim on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof. In re Omnicom Group, Inc., Sec. Litig., 597 F.3d 501, 509 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting Burke v. Jacoby, 981 F.2d 1372, 1379 (2d Cir. 1992)). Once a party moving for summary judgment has made a properly supported showing of the absence of any genuine issue as to all material facts, the nonmoving party must, to defeat summary judgment, come forward with evidence that would be sufficient to support a jury verdict in its favor. Goenaga v. March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation, 51 F.3d 14, 18 (2d Cir. 1995). “[F]actual issues created solely by an affidavit crafted to oppose a summary judgment motion are not ‘genuine’ issues for trial.” Hayes v. New York City Dep’t of Corrections, 84 F.3d 614, 619 (2d Cir. 1996). “An issue of fact is genuine and material if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Cross Commerce Media, Inc. v. Collective, Inc., 841 F.3d 155, 162 (2d Cir. 2016) (citing SCR Joint Venture L.P. v. Warshawsky, 559 F.3d 133,137 (2d Cir. 2009)). In the instant case, Defendant argues in support of summary judgment the FBI’s search of records responsive to the FOIA Request was adequate, Defendant’s Memorandum at 6-8, Plaintiff has no right to the requested records that are within the purview of the Privacy Act, id. at 8-10, and the FBI’s FOIA Request response was proper because it complied with segregability requirements, id. at 10-11, as well as with the asserted FOIA exemptions, id. at 12-18. In response to Defendant’s Motion and in support of Plaintiff’s Motion, Plaintiff argues the FBI’s investigations of Plaintiff do not qualify for FOIA’s law enforcement exception, Plaintiff’s Memorandum at 1-3, requests the court order the FBI release the non-exempt portions of the records, id. at 3-4, maintains the FBI’s search for records was inadequate, id. at 4-5, asserts the FBI improperly withheld information based on the various FOIA exemptions, id. at 5-12, and requests an award of attorney fees and costs incurred in connection with this action. Id. at 12. In reply, Defendant argues the FBI’s search for records responsive to Plaintiff’s FOIA Request was adequate, Defendant’s Reply at 2-5, and the FBI’s response to the FOIA Request was proper with regard to segregability, id. at 5-7, as well as with regard to information withheld pursuant to the various asserted FOIA exemptions, id. at 7-19, and maintains not only is Plaintiff’s argument in support of attorney fees an argument that is premature on summary judgment, id. at 20, but that even if such request were ripe for determination, the circumstances of the instant action do not support such an award. Id. at 20-23. 2. FOIA Overview “The Freedom of Information Act adopts as its most basic premise a policy strongly favoring public disclosure of information in the possession of federal agencies.” Halpern v. F.B.I., 181 F.3d 279, 286 (2d Cir. 1999) (citing cases). “As noted by the Supreme Court, under FOIA, ‘federal jurisdiction is dependent on a showing that an agency has (1) ‘improperly’ (2) ‘withheld’ (3) ‘agency records.”” Grand Cent. Partnership, Inc. v. Cuomo, 166 F.3d 473, 478 (2d Cir. 1999) (quoting U.S. Dep’t of Justice v. Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. 136, 142 (1980) (quoting Kissinger v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of Press, 445 U.S. 136, 150 (1980))). “Only when each of these criteria is met may a district court ‘force an agency to comply with the FOIA’s disclosure requirements.’” Id. “[T]he strong presumption in favor of disclosure places the burden on the agency to justify the withholding of any requested documents.” U.S. Dep’t of State v. Ray, 502 U.S. 164, 173 (1991). The agency has the initial burden to show it conducted an adequate search for responsive records. Carney v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 19 F.3d 807, 812 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 823 (1994). A search is considered adequate if it was reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents, yet reasonableness does not demand perfection, and a reasonable search need not uncover every document extant. Grand Cent. Partnership, Inc., 166 F.3d at 489. “The FOIA requires that agency records be made available promptly upon a request that ‘reasonably describes such records and…is made in accordance with published rules stating the time, place, fees (if any), and procedures to be followed.’” Ruotolo v. Dep’t of Justice, Tax Division, 53 F.3d 4, 9 (2d Cir. 1995) (quoting 5 U.S.C. §552(a)(3)). FOIA, however, exempts from disclosure nine categories of information. 5 U.S.C. §552(b)(1) through (9) (“Exemption (b)(__)”). “Accordingly, to prevail on a summary judgment motion in a FOIA case, an agency must demonstrate ‘that each document that falls within the class requested either has been produced, is unidentifiable, or is wholly exempt from the Act’s inspection requirements.’” Ruotolo, 53 F.3d at 9 (quoting Nat’l Cable Television Ass’n Inc. v. FCC, 479 F.2d 183, 186 (D.C. Cir. 1973)). Furthermore, “‘to prevail on a motion for summary judgment in a FOIA case, the defending agency has the burden of showing that its search was adequate.’” Id. (quoting Carney, 19 F.3d at 812). “‘Affidavits submitted by an agency are accorded a presumption of good faith; accordingly, discovery relating to the agency’s search and the exemptions it claims for withholding records generally is unnecessary if the agency’s submissions are adequate on their face.’” Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 36 F. Supp. 3d 384, 398 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (quoting Carney, 19 F.3d at 812 (citation omitted)). “‘In order to justify discovery once the agency has satisfied its burden, the plaintiff must make a showing of bad faith on the part of the agency sufficient to impugn the agency’s affidavits or declarations, or provide some tangible evidence that an exemption claimed by the agency should not apply or summary judgment is otherwise inappropriate.’” Id. (citations omitted). “Summary judgment is the preferred procedural vehicle for resolving FOIA disputes.” Bloomberg, L.P. v. Bd. of Governors of Fed. Reserve Sys., 649 F.Supp.2d 262, 271 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). “In order to prevail on a motion for summary judgment in a FOIA case, the defending agency has the burden of showing that its search was adequate and that any withheld documents fall within an exemption to the FOIA.” Carney, 19 F.3d at 812. In contrast, “‘[s]ummary judgment in favor of [a] FOIA plaintiff is appropriate when an agency seeks to protect material which, even on the agency’s version of the facts, falls outside the proffered exemption.’” Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 36 F.Supp.3d 384, 398 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (quoting NY. Times Co. v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., 499 F.Supp.2d 501, 509 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)). In resolving a summary judgment motion in a FOIA action, the district court conducts a de novo review of an agency’s response to a FOIA request including any government records which the agency claims are exempt from disclosing. See Lee v. F.D.I.C., 923 F.Supp. 451, 453 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (citing 5 U.S.C. §552(a)(4)(B); Dep’t of the Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 361-62 (1976). Such “de novo review requires the court to reweigh the evidence compiled by the agency to determine whether the agency’s findings are correct, not just whether they are reasonable.” Id. at 453-54. Although FOIA authorizes in camera inspection of the documents in question, it is not required. Id. (citing 5 U.S.C. §552(a)(4)(B)). 3. FBI FOIA Request As stated, Plaintiff’s challenge to the information released by the FBI in response to Plaintiff’s FOIA Request includes that the FBI improperly withheld information pertaining to an investigation of Plaintiff for exercising his First Amendment rights, Plaintiff’s Memorandum at 2-3, requests the court order the FBI release non-exempt portions of the requested records the FBI erroneously maintains are “inextricably intertwined” with exempt portions, id. at 3-4, the FBI’s records search was inadequate, id. at 4-5, and the FBI improperly withheld information based on various FOIA exemptions. Id. at 5-11. The court addresses each of these argument in turn. A. Propriety of Investigation At the outset, Plaintiff argues that the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. §552a (“the Privacy Act”), specifically forbids any agency from maintaining records describing how any individual exercises First Amendment rights unless, as relevant here, such records are pertinent to or within the scope of authorized law enforcement activity. 5 U.S.C. §552a(e)(7). Plaintiff’s Memorandum at 2. According to Plaintiff, the investigation conducted by the FBI between 2012 and 2014, into Plaintiff and Pickering’s possible involvement in domestic terrorism and eco-terrorism based on their activities at Burning Books was illegal because the activities being investigated consisted of guest speakers at events promoting social justice and the environment, as well as exposing the plight of political prisoners, all activities entitled to First Amendment protection. Id. As such, for the FBI to invoke FOIA Exemption (b)(7) (exempting from disclosure under FOIA six categories of “records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes) as supporting the withholding of documents responsive to Plaintiff’s FOIA Request, the FBI must establish the documents pertain to investigative activities complying with the Privacy Act, i.e., that “were realistically based on a legitimate concern that federal laws have been or may be violated or that national security may be breached,” particularly, as relevant here, involvement in domestic terrorism and eco-terrorism. Plaintiff’s Memorandum at 2 (citing cases). In opposition, Defendant maintains the FBI’s investigation of Plaintiff was based on Plaintiff’s association with individuals directly involved in domestic terrorism, and thus is supported by 28 U.S.C. §§533 and 534, and Executive Order 12333 as implemented by the Attorney General’s Guidelines for Domestic FBI Operations (“AGG-DOM”), and 28 C.F.R. §0.85. Defendant’s Reply at 10-11 (citing Hardy Declaration 42, and Seidel Declaration 7). There is no merit to Plaintiff’s argument on this point. As a threshold matter, Exemption 7 only permits the withholding of records or information to the extent it was “compiled for law enforcement purposes.” 5 U.S.C. §552(b)(7). Accordingly, prior to withholding any records based on any of the six separately enumerated categories in Exemption 7 pertaining to “records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes,” 28 U.S.C. §552(b)(7), the agency must first meet the threshold requirement by demonstrating “the records sought were compiled for law enforcement purposes.” John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp., 493 U.S. 146, 148 (1989). Specifically, “[a]n agency must establish a rational nexus between the agency’s activity in compiling the documents and its law enforcement duties.” New York Times Co., 390 F. Supp. 3d. at 513 (citing Brennan Ctr., 331 F.Supp.3d at 97). Courts broadly construe the terms “law enforcement” and “compiled,” with law enforcement purposes consisting of either civil or criminal matters, or an agency’s “proactive steps designed to prevent criminal activity and maintain security.” Human Rights Watch v. Dep’t of Justice Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 2015 WL 5459713, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2015) (quoting Milner v. Dep’t of the Navy, 562 U.S. 562, 582 (2011) (Alito, J., concurring)); see New York Times Co., 390 F. Supp. 3d at 513 (citing Tax Analysts v. I.R.S., 294 F.3d 71, 76 (D.C. Cir. 2002)) (citations omitted). The act of compiling records for law enforcement purposes “requires only ‘that a document be created, gathered, or used by an agency for law enforcement purposes at some time before the agency invokes the exemption.’” Schwartz v. Dep’t of Defense, 2017 WL 78482, at *12 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2017) (quoting Pub. Emps. for Envtl. Responsibility (PEER) v. U.S. Section, Int’l Boundary and Water Comm’n, 740 F.3d 195, 203 (D.C. Cir. 2014)). This means that a document not originally compiled for a law enforcement purpose may later be “compiled” for purposes of Exemption 7(A). See John Doe Agency, 493 U.S. at 154 (reversing Court of Appeals’ strict interpretation of “compiled” as meaning “originally compiled”). Further, “[l]aw enforcement entails more than just investigating and prosecuting individuals after a violation of the law,” Public Emps. For Env’t. Responsibility v. U.S. Section, Int’l Boundary & Water Comm’n, 740 F.3d 195, 203 (D.C. Cir. 2014), i.e., statements of an intent to commit a crime, but less than an attempt, and, for purposes of Exemption 7, law enforcement goes beyond traditional investigation and prosecution of individuals for criminal offenses. See id (steps taken by law enforcement officers to prevent terrorism are taken for “law enforcement purposes”). Importantly, an agency’s statement that records were compiled as a part of an investigation suffices to establish that records were compiled for law enforcement purposes without further factual findings. Am. Civil Liberties Union Found. v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 833 F. Supp. 399, 406 (S.D.N.Y. 1993). Further, “once the government has demonstrated that the records were compiled in the course of an investigation conducted by a law enforcement agency, the purpose or legitimacy of such executive action are not proper subjects for judicial review.” Halpern v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, 181 F.3d 279, 296 (2d Cir. 1999). Here, Defendant relies on statements by Hardy and Seidel in their respective declarations to support Defendant’s assertion that the withheld information was compiled in the course of an FBI investigation. Hardy avers that the records Plaintiff seeks were generated by the FBI “in furtherance of investigations of violations of federal laws to include domestic terrorism and the subject’s association with individuals directly involved in such violations.” Hardy Declaration 42. According to Hardy, “records responsive to Plaintiff’s request were compiled during the FBI’s criminal investigation into other sensitive investigations involving individuals and organizations the subject had an association with.” Id. Seidel, who succeeded Hardy as Section Chief of RIDS, IMD, FBI, confirms the investigation pursuant to which the responsive records were generated by the FBI “relates to Plaintiff’s association with individuals being investigated for Domestic Terrorism activities.” Seidel Declaration 7. In particular, “[t]he 22 serials responsive to Plaintiff’s request were all created in connection with Domestic Terrorism investigation activities or other potential illegal activities that could involve violence.” Id. Accordingly, during the course of the investigation, “[t]he FBI performed various law enforcement duties, to include, but not limited to, surveillance, third-party interviews, handling of source information on potential illegal activity, and various law enforcement database checks, to investigate whether any illegal activity occurred.” Id. In the instant case, “a more particularized justification would require reviewing material which the statute specifically exempts from disclosure or information from which inferences of such material can be deduced,” and therefore is not required. Doherty v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 775 F.2d 49, 52 (2d Cir. 1985) (citing cases). Moreover, in the instant case, the Plaintiff’s own averments in support of summary judgment make clear the records Plaintiff seeks pertain to the FBI’s investigation of political activists, including several particular political activities and journalists, as well as a defense attorney known for representing controversial defendants, who have appeared at Burning Books. Plaintiff’s Affidavit

2, 13-14. See Gonzalez v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., 475 F.Supp.3d 334, 350-51 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (finding the plaintiff’s own requests for records “make clear that he, in order to establish his claim for asylum in removal proceedings, seeks documents and information concerning the plaintiff’s interactions with ICE and HSI” such that any documents responsive to the request would necessarily concern law enforcement activities of the agencies). This sufficiently establishes the records responsive to Plaintiff’s FOIA Request were compiled for law enforcement purposes and was used in assisting law enforcement officials in the course of their duties, thereby satisfying the threshold for FOIA Exemption 7. See Halpern, 181 F.3d at 296 (no further judicial review is permitted once government establishes records were compiled in the course of a law enforcement investigation); Am. Civil Liberties Union Found., 833 F. Supp. at 406 (agency’s statement records compiled as part of investigation establishes records were compiled for law enforcement purposes without further factual findings). Accordingly, on this argument, summary judgment is DENIED as to Plaintiff and GRANTED as to Defendant. B. Segregability Plaintiff argues the FBI failed to provide “justifications for nondisclosure with reasonably specific details” as required to support withholding four pages of documents in full as well as the release of 54 pages only in part. Plaintiff’s Memorandum at 3-4 (quoting Military Audit Project v. Casey, 656 F.2d 724, 738 (D.C.Cir. 1981)). In opposition, Defendants argues Plaintiff fails to allege how or why the FBI’s FOIA release does not comport with the segregability test.¹⁹ Defendant’s Reply at 5-7. According to Defendant, the Seidel Declaration sets forth a sufficient explanation of the segregability review conducted on the records responsive to Plaintiff’s FOIA Request. Id. at 6-7. Insofar as Plaintiff urges the court to conduct an in camera review of the withheld documents “‘to look for segregable non-exempt matter,’” Plaintiff’s Memorandum at 4 (quoting Weissman v. Central Intelligence Agency, 565 F.2d 692, 698 (D.C.Cir. 1977)), Congress left it in the court’s discretion to determine whether or not to undertake in camera review. Military Audit Project v. Bush, 418 F.Supp. 876, 879 (D.C.Cir.1976). Moreover, where the Government’s affidavits on their face indicate the documents withheld logically fall within the claimed exemptions and there is no doubt as to the requested agency’s good faith, the court should restrain its discretion to order in camera review. Lead Industries Ass’n, Inc. v. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 610 F.2d 70, 87-88 (2d Cir. 1979). In the instant case, no in camera review is required because the Hardy Declaration objectively verifies the FBI’s asserted decision to deny disclosing documents and portions of documents pertaining to investigations of domestic terrorism and environmental extremism. In particular, Hardy avers the FBI identified 58 pages of responsive records, three which were RIF, four WIF, and 51 RIP. Hardy Declaration 76. Hardy explains that the redactions to the 51 records RIP, and the four documents WIF avoids otherwise foreseeable harm to one or more of the interests protected by FOIA exemptions. Id. Seidel further explains that the redactions and withheld information is supported by the fact that Plaintiff is only referenced throughout the responsive records but, Plaintiff is not the main subject or focus of the domestic terrorism and environmental extremism investigations to which the records pertain. Seidel Declaration 14. Seidel provides further details as to a three-page document released in part, denominated on the Vaughn Index as “FBI document dated November 14, 2003, on information regarding Zoar Valley,” and Bates-stamped 27, 28, and 29. Seidel Declaration 14 (citing Vaughn Index, Dkt. 15-1 at 55). Seidel explains that the information withheld on these three pages includes the case file number, database name, and third parties’ names and identifying information “Disclosable information cannot be easily separated from that which is exempt without compromising the secret nature of the information.” Doherty, 775 F.2d at 52-53. As such, “that there may be some nonexempt matter in documents which are predominantly exempt does not require the district court to undertake the burdensome task of analyzing” withheld documents in camera. Id. (citing Lead Industries, 610 F.2d at 88. See also Weissman v. CIA, 565 F.2d 692, 697-98 (D.C.Cir.1977)). Here, the affidavits submitted provide an objective verification in support of the FBI’s decision to deny disclosure of documents containing intelligence information and material pertaining, as Defendant asserts, to the FBI’s investigation of domestic terrorism and environmental extremism. Significantly, Plaintiff concedes the investigations to which his FOIA Request pertains is “a federal eco-terrorism conspiracy investigation based on [Plaintiff's] association with Pickering.” Plaintiff’s Affidavit 9. Summary judgment on Plaintiff’s challenge to the segregation of information withheld, either in full or in part, is DENIED as to Plaintiff and GRANTED as to Defendant. C. Adequacy of Search As to the adequacy of Defendant’s search for documents responsive to Plaintiff’s FOIA Request, “[t]o secure summary judgment in a FOIA case, the defending agency must show through reasonably detailed affidavits or declarations that it conducted an adequate search and that any withheld documents fall within a FOIA exception.” Adamowicz v. I.R.S., 402 Fed.Appx. 648, 650 (2d Cir. 2010) (citing Carney, 19 F.3d at 812). See Hodge v. F.B.I., 703 F.3d 575, 579 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (“In general, the adequacy of a search is ‘determined not by the fruits of the search, but by the appropriateness of [its] methods.’” (quoting Iturralde v. Comptroller of the Currency, 315 F.3d 311, 315 (D.C. Cir. 2003))). Such affidavits are accorded “‘a presumption of good faith,’” id. (quoting Wilner v. NSA, 592 F.3d 60, 69 (2d Cir. 2009)), “which ‘cannot be rebutted by purely speculative claims about the evidence and discoverability of other documents.’” Id. (quoting Grand Cent. P’Ship, Inc., 166 F.3d at 489. Significantly, “[a]n affidavit from an agency employee responsible for supervising a FOIA search is all that is needed to satisfy Rule 56(e); there is no need for the agency to supply affidavits from each individual who participated in the actual search.” Carney, 19 F.3d at 814. Nor does the fact that additional records responsive to a FOIA request are not located and produced until after the plaintiff commences a FOIA action render the initial search insufficient. Hodge, 703 F.3d at 580 (“it does not matter than an agency’s initial search failed to uncover certain responsive documents so long as subsequent searches captured them” (italics in original)). Furthermore, “the law demands only a ‘relatively detailed and nonconclusory’ affidavit or declaration.” Adamowicz, 402 Fed.Appx. at 650-51 (quoting Grand Cent. P’Ship, Inc., 166 F.3d at 488-89). Here, this standard is satisfied by the Hardy Declaration and the Seidel Declaration provided by Defendant. Specifically, Hardy avers that when Plaintiff filed his FOIA Request, Hardy, as RIDS Section Chief, was responsible for managing responses to requests for records and information pursuant to, as relevant here, FOIA and the Privacy Act. Hardy Declaration 2. In such capacity, Hardy is fully familiar with procedures followed by the FBI in responding to FOIA Requests, including the request filed by Plaintiff. Id. 3. Hardy recounts in meticulous detail the steps by which FOIA Requests are processed upon receipt, including Plaintiff’s FOIA Request, id.