Javino v. Hurd

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: June 20, 2025
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2023-1678
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA _________________________________________ ) DALE ROBERT JAVINO, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil No. 23-cv-01678 (APM) ) MATTHEW W. HURD, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) _________________________________________ )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This Freedom of Information Act case arises out of a request made by Plaintiff Dale Robert

Javino to the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) for records relating to a contact that the FBI

made with him on January 7, 2022. See Compl., ECF No. 1, Ex. 1, ECF No. 1-1, at 7 (Plaintiff’s

FOIA request). That contact concerned Plaintiff’s alleged actions on January 6, 2021, in

Washington, D.C., at the U.S. Capitol. Id. The FBI identified 1,619 pages of documents, most of

which it did not disclose on various grounds. Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 15 [hereinafter

Defs.’ Mot.], Decl. of Shannon R. Hammer, ECF No. 15-5 [hereinafter Hammer Decl.], ¶ 4.

Defendants then moved for summary judgment as to the scope of its search and its reliance on

Exemptions 3, 5, 6, 7(A), 7(C), 7(D), and 7(E) to withhold records and information. See generally

Defs.’ Mot., Mem. of P&A in Supp., ECF No. 15-1 [hereinafter Defs.’ Mem.]. Plaintiff largely did

not respond to the arguments raised by Defendants. See generally Pl.’s Opp’n to Defs.’ Mot.,

ECF No. 17 [hereinafter Pl.’s Opp’n]. Instead, he protested the non-disclosure of the identity of

the person who Plaintiff believes provided false information to the FBI about what he did on

January 6th. Id. at 2. The FBI withheld that information based on Exemptions 6, 7(C), and 7(D).

Defs.’ Mem. at 20–21, 22–27. As explained below, Defendants’ motion is granted. For starters, “[b]ecause [Plaintiff] failed to oppose the government’s application of a

particular withholding or redaction, the Court infers that he no longer seeks those documents (and

thus that there is no longer any controversy as to them).” Block v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., No. 1:19-

cv-03073 (CJN), 2022 WL 683569, at *3 (D.D.C. Mar. 8, 2022); see also Schaerr v. U.S. Dep’t of

Just., 435 F. Supp. 3d 99, 109 (D.D.C. 2020); Shapiro v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 239 F. Supp. 3d 100,

105–06, 106 n.1 (D.D.C. 2017). Therefore, the court grants Defendants summary judgment as to

the scope of its search and all withholdings to which Plaintiff did not object.

As to the one piece of contested withheld information—the identity of the source—the FBI

properly withheld the individual’s name under Exemptions 6, 7(C), and 7(D). As to Exemption

7(D), the FBI has established that it received information from the source under an assurance of

confidentiality. See Hammer Decl., ¶¶ 73–79. Under the law of this Circuit, “once an agency

establishes that it received the requested information in confidence, ‘the source will be deemed a

confidential one, and both the identity of the source and the information he or she provided will

be immune from FOIA disclosure.’” Parker v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 934 F.2d 375, 378 (D.C. Cir.

1991) (citation omitted). Accordingly, the withholding of the source’s identify was proper under

Exemption 7(D).

The same holds true under Exemptions 6 and 7(C). A confidential law enforcement source

has a substantial privacy interest in their relationship to an investigation remaining secret. Roth v.

U.S. Dep’t of Just., 642 F.3d 1161, 1174 (D.C. Cir. 2011); Hammer Decl. ¶¶ 62–63. Plaintiff, on

the other hand, has articulated no public interest. To the contrary, the only interest in disclosure

he identifies is a personal one. Pl.’s Opp’n at 2 (stating that he “wish[es] to prosecute this person

sue for defamation and slander or whatever legal vehicle I can use to prevent disgruntled parties

from bearing false witness in the future”) (citation omitted). “[E]ven a modest privacy interest,

2 outweighs nothing every time.” Nat'l Ass’n of Retired Fed. Employees v. Horner, 879 F.2d 873,

879 (D.C. Cir. 1989). The FBI thus also properly withheld the source’s identity under Exemptions

6 and 7(C).

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 15, is

granted. A separate final order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Dated: June 20, 2025 Amit P. Mehta United States District Judge