Jose M. Quinon and G. Richard Strafer v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

Citations: 86 F.3d 1222; 318 U.S. App. D.C. 228Docket: 94-5261

Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit; August 20, 1996; Federal Appellate Court

Combined Opinion SummaryCombined Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Jose Quinon and G. Richard Strafer, criminal defense attorneys, appealed a decision from the District Court regarding their request for documents from an FBI investigation into potential obstruction of justice. The FBI had withheld many requested documents under exemptions related to law enforcement records. The District Court sided with the FBI based on affidavits from special agents. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, instructing the District Court to conduct an in camera review of the withheld documents to determine the legitimacy of the investigation and the confidentiality expectation of the FBI's sources.

The investigation centered on whether Quinon and two other lawyers conspired to disqualify the Eleventh Circuit from handling the appeal of Carlos Lehder, a convicted drug trafficker. After his conviction in 1988, Lehder's lawyers argued he was entitled to court-appointed counsel due to financial difficulties, despite his wealth. The trial judge expressed skepticism regarding this claim and appointed a magistrate to evaluate the situation, leading to concerns about the costs associated with Lehder's appeal, prompting a directive to pause legal work on the case.

On March 17, 1989, the Eleventh Circuit appointed Judge Tjoflat to determine whether attorneys Shohat and Quinon should continue representing Carlos Lehder in his appeal. In an April 1989 meeting, Quinon expressed his intent to rejoin the case alongside co-counsel Strafer. On March 6, 1990, Judge Tjoflat raised concerns in a letter to fellow judges about the appropriateness of court-appointed counsel representing a defendant who had previously been privately represented, highlighting the Lehder case as a significant example. He suggested amending circuit rules to prevent attorneys from declining representation post-trial. Subsequently, on April 1, 1991, Rule 46-1(d)(1) was established, mandating that retained counsel could not abandon representation without court approval. This rule faced backlash from the Florida legal community, leading to critical responses from defense lawyers, including accusations of infringing on the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

On August 6, 1991, appellants filed a motion to disqualify the Eleventh Circuit, claiming Judge Tjoflat's letter falsely accused Lehder's trial counsel of misconduct, which they argued tainted the court's ability to hear the appeal. Following this, an FBI investigation was initiated based on a complaint regarding potential obstruction of justice involving Quinon and others. However, on September 11, 1991, the prosecutor, AUSA Ernst Mueller, concluded the investigation, asserting that the disqualification motion was an attempt to undermine Rule 46. The motion was denied, and Lehder's sentence was affirmed by the court.

On November 21, 1991, appellants Quinon and Strafer submitted a FOIA request for documents from an FBI obstruction of justice investigation. The FBI produced 77 pages but released only 16 in redacted form, citing Exemptions 7(C) and (D) of FOIA and Exemption (j)(2) of the Privacy Act. These exemptions pertain to protecting personal privacy and the identities of confidential sources. The appellants filed a lawsuit seeking the remaining documents, and both parties moved for summary judgment. 

On August 4, 1994, the district court granted the FBI's motion and denied the appellants' cross-motion, concluding that the FBI had justified the withholding of records for legitimate law enforcement purposes. The court dismissed the appellants' claims of retaliatory investigation as mere speculation, asserting that the public interest in disclosure was minimal compared to the significant privacy interests involved. The court found that both Exemptions 7(C) and 7(D) were appropriately invoked. Importantly, the court made these determinations without conducting an in camera review of the withheld documents.

The appellants contested the court's decision, arguing that the FBI's affidavits lacked detailed support for summary judgment and that the court erred in not reviewing the documents in camera. The central issue on appeal is whether the district court should have conducted an in camera inspection to assess the applicability of the claimed FOIA exemptions. FOIA allows for de novo review of exemptions, and while in camera examinations are not mandatory, they can be necessary in certain situations. Agencies typically submit affidavits to substantiate their claims of exemption, which may suffice for summary judgment if they detail why the documents are exempt.

Affidavits submitted by an agency must contain specific and detailed information to justify document withholding under exemptions; mere conclusory statements or vague claims are inadequate. If the affidavits clearly support the exemption and are uncontradicted by the record, and if there is no indication of agency bad faith, summary judgment is warranted without an in camera review. The decision to conduct an in camera review is at the discretion of the trial court. Such reviews allow for case-specific determinations but can impose significant burdens on the court, potentially lack precedential value, and deny FOIA requesters the chance to argue their interpretations of the documents. While courts should not routinely resort to in camera reviews, such reviews may be appropriate when agency affidavits lack detail or when evidence of bad faith exists. The number and length of withheld documents also play a role in determining the necessity of an in camera inspection. In the case at hand, the FBI withheld 61 out of 77 pages from an obstruction of justice investigation, claiming exemptions under FOIA and the Privacy Act. Despite the FBI's offer for in camera review, the district court granted summary judgment based solely on the affidavits provided.

To invoke Exemptions 7(C) and (D) for withholding documents, an agency must demonstrate that the information was compiled for law enforcement purposes as defined under 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7). A record qualifies if it was created during an investigation related to federal law enforcement duties and supported by sufficient information to establish a rational basis for the investigation. Law enforcement agencies like the FBI are held to a less stringent standard for demonstrating legitimate law enforcement purposes, but the claimed connection between the investigation and law enforcement duties must be credible and not pretextual.

If the agency establishes a legitimate basis for the investigation, the burden shifts to the requester to prove that the law enforcement rationale is merely a facade. The mere presence of a plausible investigatory reason does not shield documents from disclosure if the investigation's purpose is deemed illegitimate, such as harassment.

The district court found that the affidavits from FBI special agents sufficiently indicated a rational relationship between the investigation and the FBI's law enforcement duties. The court dismissed the appellants' claims of retaliation as speculative. However, the affidavits primarily relied on the filing of a motion to disqualify a judge, which the appellants argued could not alone justify an obstruction of justice investigation. The FBI conceded this point but referenced Special Agent Lipkey's declaration, which indicated that other unspecified events led to the investigation. This declaration aimed to establish a rational basis for the investigation while protecting the identity of confidential sources, thus asserting that it remedied any deficiencies in the earlier affidavits and negated the need for an in camera review.

Affidavits submitted by the FBI lack sufficient factual details to justify an obstruction of justice investigation. They vaguely reference "certain events" without proper description, failing to meet the requirement for specificity needed to support such claims. The court emphasizes the necessity for the FBI to present clear facts indicating that the agency had a good faith belief that federal law may have been violated. Conclusory statements in the affidavits necessitate an in camera review to assess their legitimacy, as merely alluding to events does not fulfill the Pratt requirement. The FBI's vague references raise concerns, particularly since they may relate to criticisms of procedural rules, which do not substantiate a serious basis for investigation.

The FBI argues that it cannot provide more specificity due to the need to protect a confidential source, highlighting the importance of an in camera review to evaluate the investigation's foundation. The court notes that the FBI's insufficient affidavits do not warrant further inquiry into potential pretextual motives behind the investigation. 

Regarding the district court's findings on Exemptions 7(C) and (D), the court plans to remand the case for in camera review of the withheld documents to confirm they were compiled for law enforcement purposes as defined by the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Exemption 7(C) allows withholding documents if their disclosure would cause an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, balancing privacy interests against public interest in disclosure, as established in case law.

In *Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility v. United States Secret Service*, the D.C. Circuit upheld the FBI's decision to withhold documents identifying informants and individuals involved in an investigation, citing minimal public interest in disclosure and strong privacy interests of those individuals. Appellants contended that the privacy interest of Chief Judge Tjoflat should not be protected under Exemption 7(C) due to his potential role as a necessary witness in any obstruction of justice prosecution and his status as a public figure. However, the court dismissed the speculation regarding his necessity as a witness and noted that while public officials have a diminished privacy interest, they do not forfeit all rights to personal privacy. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the relevant public interest pertains to the FBI's conduct, not the Chief Judge's actions. The appellants failed to provide evidence of wrongdoing by the Chief Judge that would warrant disclosure, and the court concluded that the FBI could invoke Exemption 7(C) to withhold the names of individuals in the documents, as they were compiled for law enforcement purposes and did not serve to illuminate agency performance.

Exemption 7(D) of the Freedom of Information Act allows agencies to withhold documents obtained from confidential sources for law enforcement purposes. The district court, relying on a declaration from Special Agent Felix, found that individuals interviewed were aware of the investigation subjects and would likely not risk embarrassment from public disclosure, thus supporting an implied assurance of confidentiality. However, the Supreme Court's ruling in United States Department of Justice v. Landano established that a broad presumption of confidentiality cannot be assumed simply because a source provided information to the FBI; a more nuanced, case-specific analysis is required.

The district court's reliance on Felix’s statement regarding the informants' relationships with the subjects of the investigation was inadequate under Landano’s standards, as mere acquaintance does not fulfill the requirement for a particularized approach. The expectation of confidentiality must be assessed based on both the nature of the information provided and the relationships involved. The FBI’s argument that the violent nature of the crime implied confidentiality was found unpersuasive, particularly given the specifics of the investigation. The FBI is permitted to submit further affidavits to support its claims.

On remand, the district court is tasked with examining the documents in camera to determine the legitimacy of the law enforcement investigation and the applicability of confidentiality for each informant. It must also verify whether any non-exempt portions of the documents were improperly withheld. The summary judgment in favor of the FBI has been vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.