Skip to content

Judicial Watch • JW v DOJ 01024 Barbara Bosserman’s Time Records 2

JW v DOJ 01024 Barbara Bosserman’s Time Records 2

JW v DOJ 01024 Barbara Bosserman’s Time Records 2

Page 1: JW v DOJ 01024 Barbara Bosserman’s Time Records 2

Category:Lawsuit

Number of Pages:40

Date Created:November 3, 2014

Date Uploaded to the Library:January 27, 2015

Tags:Time, 01024, Bosserman, al Qaeda, Barbara, DHS, FBI, records, DOJ, FOIA, Supreme Court, EPA, IRS, CIA


File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!


See Generated Text   ∨

Autogenerated text from PDF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
 FOR THE DISTRICT COLUMBIA
 
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC., 

425 Third Street, S.W., Suite 800 Washington, 20024 
Plaintiff, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT JUSTICE, 
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, 20530 
Defendant. 
Case No. 1:14-cv-1024 (BAH) 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 
Pursuant Rule the Federal Rules Civil Procedure, Defendant, the United States Department Justice, and through undersigned counsel, hereby moves the Court for summary judgment Count the Complaint.  Summary judgment appropriate because Defendant correctly determined that the requested records are exempt from disclosure.  The grounds for this motion are set forth length the accompanying memorandum law. 
November 2014 Respectfully submitted, 
JOYCE BRANDA Acting Assistant Attorney General 
ELIZABETH SHAPIRO Deputy Branch Director,  Federal Programs Branch 
/s/ Sam Singer 
SAM SINGER 

D.C. Bar. No. 1014022 Trial Attorney, Federal Programs Branch Civil Division United States Department Justice Massachusetts Ave., NW, Room 6138 Washington, 20001 Tel: (202) 616-8014 Fax: (202) 616-8470 samuel.m.singer@usdoj.gov 
Counsel for Defendant 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
 FOR THE DISTRICT COLUMBIA
 
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC., 
425 Third Street, S.W., Suite 800 Washington, 20024 
Plaintiff, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT JUSTICE, 
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, 20530 
Defendant. 
Case No. 1:14-cv-1024 (BAH) 

MEMORANDUM SUPPORT DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY
 JUDGMENT 

TABLE CONTENTS
 

INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 

BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................1 
Criminal Investigation into Alleged IRS Misconduct .........................................................1 

II. 
Judicial Watchs FOIA Request and the Department Justices Response .......................2 

ARGUMENT...................................................................................................................................3 
Legal Standards for Summary Judgment FOIA Cases ....................................................3 

II. 
The DOJ Properly Withheld Records Pursuant FOIA Exemption ...............................4 
The Time Records Are Protected The Work Product Privilege .........................4 
The Time Records Are Protected The Deliberative Process Privilege ...............8 

III. 
The DOJ Properly Withheld Records Pursuant FOIA Exemption 7(A) ..........................9 

IV. 
The DOJ Properly Withheld Records Pursuant FOIA Exemptions 7(C) ...............11 

CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................13 

TABLE AUTHORITIES 

CASES             PAGE(S) 
Barnard DHS,, 598 Supp. (D.D.C. 2009) ............................................................................................ 
Berger I.R.S., 288 App'x 829 (3d Cir. 2008) ............................................................................................. 
Bibles Or. Natural Desert Ass'n, 519 U.S. 355 (1997) ................................................................................................................ 
Boyd Criminal Division the U.S. Department Justice, 475 F.3d 381 (D.C. Cir. 2007) ................................................................................................  
Chemical Mfrs. Ass'n Consumer Prod. Safety Comm'n, 600 Supp. 114 (D.D.C. 1984) ...............................................................................................  
Coastal States Gas Corp. Dep't Energy, 617 F.2d 854 (D.C. Cir. 1980) .................................................................................................. 
Ctr. for Nat'l Sec. Studies DOJ, 331 F.3d 918 (D.C. Cir. 2003) ............................................................................................  
Darui U.S. Department State, 798 Supp. (D.D.C. 2011) ............................................................................................ 
Edmonds FBI, 272 Supp. (D.D.C. 2003) ...............................................................................................  
Envt'l Prot. Servs. EPA, 364 Supp. 575 (N.D. Va. 2005) ................................................................................  
Goland CIA, 607 F.2d 339 (D.C. Cir. 1978) .................................................................................................. 
Hickman Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947) .......................................................................................................... Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729 (D.C. Cir. 1997) .................................................................................................. 
Indian Law Res. Ctr. Dep't Interior, 477 Supp. 144 (D.D.C. 1979) ...............................................................................................  
J.P. Stevens Co. Perry, 710 F.2d 136 (4th Cir. 1983) ................................................................................................... 
Judicial Watch Dep't Army, 
402 Supp. 241 (D.D.C. 2005) ........................................................................................  Judicial Watch Rossotti, 
285 Supp. (D.D.C. 2003) .......................................................................................... Judicial Watch, Inc. U.S. Dep't Justice, 
432 F.3d 366 (D.C. Cir. 2005) ...........................................................................................  Kidder F.B.I., 
517 Supp. (D.D.C. 2007) .......................................................................................... Lesar U.S. Dept Justice, 
636 F.2d 472 (D.C. Cir. 1980).12 Long U.S. Dept Justice, 
703 Supp. (2010) ......................................................................................................... Manna U.S. Dep't Justice, F.3d 1158 (3d Cir. 1995) .................................................................................................... Moore Bush, 
601 Supp. (D.D.C. 2009) ..............................................................................................  National Archives Records Administration Favish, 
541 U.S. 157 (2004) ................................................................................................................ Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. Sears, Roebuck Co., 
421 U.S. 132 (1975) ..........................................................................................................  Piper United States Department Justice, 
294 Supp. (D.D.C. 2003) ............................................................................................ Russell Dep't Air Force, 
682 F.2d 1045 (D.C. Cir. 1982) ................................................................................................ Safecard Servs., Inc. Securities and Exchange Comm'n, 
926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir. 1991) .............................................................................................  Schiller Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 
964 F.2d 1205 (D.C. Cir. 1992) ................................................................................................ Solar Sources, Inc. United States, 
142 F.3d 1033 (7th Cir. 1998) ................................................................................................. Students Against Genocide Department State, 
257 F.3d 828 (D.C. Cir. 2001) .................................................................................................. Suzhou Yuanda Enter. Co. Customs Border Protection, 
404 Supp. (D.D.C. 2005) ............................................................................................
 
Tax Analysts IRS, 
117 F.3d 607 (D.C. Cir. 1997) ................................................................................................... 

United States Department Justice Reporters Comm. for Freedom the Press, 
489 U.S. 749 (1989) .................................................................................................................. 

Washington Bancorporation Said, 
CIV. 88-3111 (RCL, 1989 946533 (D.D.C. May 10, 1989) ..........................................  

Winterstein U.S. Dep't Justice, Supp. (D.D.C. 2000) ..............................................................................................  

Wolfe Dep't Health and Human Services, 
839 F.2d 768 (D.C. Cir. 1988) ..............................................................................................  

STATUTES U.S.C.  552 ................................................................................................................................. U.S.C.  552(b)(5) ................................................................................................................... U.S.C.  552(b)(6) ..................................................................................................................... U.S.C.  552(b)(7)(A) .................................................................................................................. U.S.C.  552(b)(7)(C) ................................................................................................................  

FEDERAL RULES CIVIL PROCEDURE 
Fed. Civ. 26(b)(3) ................................................................................................................... 
Fed. Civ. Rule .................................................................................................................... 
Fed. Civ. 56(a) ....................................................................................................................... 

MISCELLANEOUS 
Inappropriate Criteria Were used Identify Tax-Exempt Applications for Review, 
Reference Number 2013-10-053, May 14, 2013...1
 

INTRODUCTION this action under the Freedom Information Act, U.S.C.  552 (FOIA), plaintiff Judicial Watch, Inc. seeks public disclosure records detailing the number hours Department Justice (DOJ) attorney has expended active criminal investigation.  The DOJ correctly determined that the requested time records are exempt from disclosure under FOIA exemptions protecting privileged work product, privacy, and the integrity and effectiveness law enforcement investigations. numerous courts have held, FOIA cannot used compel the government reveal roadmap its investigative plans.  For these and other reasons, summary judgment should granted favor the Department Justice.  
BACKGROUND Criminal Investigation into Alleged IRS Misconduct audit released May 2013, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration found that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) used inappropriate criteria reviewing certain applicants for tax-exempt status.1 response the audit, the DOJ launched criminal investigation determine IRS officials broke any laws connection with their treatment groups seeking tax-exempt status. See Declaration Nelson Hermilla, dated November 2014 (Hermilla Decl.)   The investigation, which ongoing, being conducted career attorneys the Criminal Divisions Public Integrity Section and the Civil Rights Divisions Criminal Section.  This FOIA action stems from questions surrounding the involvement one those career attorneysBarbara Bosserman, senior legal counsel the Civil Rights Division. Although the DOJ has confirmed Ms. Bossermans involvement the investigation, keeping with longstanding policy, has not provided specifics about her role duties, and Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, Inappropriate Criteria Were used Identify Tax-Exempt Applications for Review, Reference Number 2013-10-053, May 14, 2013. 
has otherwise refused comment the status the investigation any findings date.  Id.  

II. Judicial Watchs FOIA Request and the Department Justices Response February 25, 2014, Judicial Watch, Inc. (Judicial Watch) sent FOIA request the Justice Management Division, component the DOJ, seeking access to: 
All Justice Department records from the Interactive Case Management System 
detailing the number hours DOJ Attorney Barbara Bosserman expended the 
investigation the Internal Revenue Service targeting conservative organizations 
seeking tax-exempt status the 2010 and 2012 election cycles.     
Judicial Watch, Inc. Complaint, June 17, 2014, ECF No. (Compl.)   The request was 
forwarded the Civil Rights Division, which acknowledged receipt and searched the Interactive 
Case Management System (ICM) for responsive records.2  Hermilla Decl.  
The ICM system electronic database that stores information about work performed matters handled the Civil Rights Divisions legal staff.  Id.  Division attorneys use the 
ICM system track and memorialize the time they spend their cases and case-related tasks.  
ICM time records are used Division management resource overseeing and reporting 
the work the Division. Id. The information the ICM system divided into various fields 
that display the case name, the DOJ file number, the date activity, the type work, the 
number hours expended, and the description the activity.  Id.  
Pursuant Judicial Watchs FOIA request, the Civil Rights Division searched the ICM 
system for records detailing the hours expended Ms. Bosserman the IRS targeting 
investigation. Id.  10. The responsive material consists electronic records detailing Ms. 
Bossermans work the IRS investigation date.  Id. addition logs detailing which days 
Ms. Bosserman worked the investigation and the number hours expended each day, the complete account the administrative review process provided the declaration Nelson Hermilla.  
ICM time records include activity codes and, some cases, brief descriptions how Ms. 
Bosserman spent her time work.  Id. Such accounts show Ms. Bosserman attending witness 
interviews, briefing colleagues and supervisors, and visiting various locations. Id. 
The Civil Rights Division denied access the requested records the basis FOIA 
Exemptions and 7(C).  Id.  The decision withhold supported declaration 
submitted Nelson Hermilla, Chief the Freedom Information/Privacy Act Branch the 
Civil Rights Division.3 
ARGUMENT Legal Standards for Summary Judgment FOIA Cases 
FOIA cases are typically and appropriately decided motions for summary judgment.  
Moore Bush, 601 Supp. (D.D.C. 2009). any other case, summary judgment warranted FOIA case if the movant shows that there genuine dispute any 
material fact and the movant entitled judgment matter law.  Fed. Civ. 56(a); see 
Darui U.S. Dept State, 798 Supp. 32, (D.D.C. 2011). agency FOIA case 
entitled summary judgment if material facts are dispute and demonstrates that each 
document that falls within the class requested either has been produced wholly exempt 
from the Acts inspection requirements.  Students Against Genocide U.S. Dept State, 257 
F.3d 828, 833 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (quoting Goland CIA, 607 F.2d 339, 352 (D.C. Cir. 1978). 
The government may satisfy its burden justifying non-disclosure records 
submitting agency declaration describing the material withheld and the reasons for non
disclosure. See U.S. Dept Justice Reporters Comm. for Freedom the Press, 489 U.S. 
749, 753 (1989). Such declarations are accorded presumption good faith, Safecard Servs., Although did not say his correspondence with Judicial Watch, Mr. Hermilla also 
determined that withholding the requested records was proper under Exemptions and 7(A).  
Hermilla Decl.   

Inc. Sec. Exch. Commn, 926 F.2d 1197, 1200 (D.C. Cir. 1991), well presumption expertise, Piper U.S. Dept Justice, 294 Supp. 16, (D.D.C. 2003). 

II. The DOJ Properly Withheld Records Pursuant FOIA Exemption 
The Civil Rights Division withheld time records from the ICM system that were rightly 
deemed privileged under Exemption  Exemption allows the agency withhold inter
agency intra-agency memorandums letters which would not available law party 
other than agency litigation with the agency. U.S.C.  552(b)(5). The exemption 
ensures that members the public cannot obtain through FOIA what they could not ordinarily 
obtain through discovery undertaken lawsuit against the agency.  Schiller NLRB, 964 
F.2d 1205, 1208 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (citation omitted).  Thus, Exemption exempt[s] those 
documents normally privileged the civil discovery context.  Id. (citations omitted).   
Because Judicial Watchs request relates ongoing criminal investigation, should 
come surprise that the responsive record qualifies attorney work product.  Moreover, 
because the same records were created part the process determining whether bring 
criminal charges connection with the IRS investigation, the records are also protected the 
overlapping deliberative process privilege. The Time Records Are Protected The Work Product Privilege 
The work product privilege protects documents prepared attorneys others contemplation litigation.  See Fed. Civ. 26(b)(3); NLRB Sears, Roebuck Co., 421 
U.S. 132, 154 (1975). The privilege is reflected interviews, statements, memoranda, correspondence, briefs, mental impressions, personal beliefs, and countless other tangible and intangible ways provided they were prepared with eye toward litigation.  Hickman Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 511 (1947). the Supreme Court has recognized, it essential that lawyer work with certain degree privacy, free from unnecessary intrusion opposing parties and their counsel. Id. 510; see also Coastal States Gas Corp. U.S. Dept Energy, 617 F.2d 854, 864 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (It believed that the integrity our system would suffer adversaries were entitled probe each others thoughts and plans concerning the case.). 
The attorney work doctrine protects records generated connection with law enforcement investigations when the investigation based upon suspicion specific wrongdoing and represent[s] attempt garner evidence and build case against the suspected wrongdoer.  Safecard Servs., 926 F.2d 1202; see also Winterstein U.S. Dep't Justice, Supp. 79, (D.D.C. 2000) (work product doctrine protected prosecution memorandum prepared for the purpose pursuing specific claim-namely, the contemplated prosecution of specific individual). Moreover, the doctrine does not distinguish between factual and deliberative material[s].  Judicial Watch, Inc. U.S. Dep't Justice, 432 F.3d 366, 371 (D.C. Cir. 2005).  Any part document] prepared anticipation litigation, not just the portions concerning opinions, legal theories, and the like, protected the work product doctrine and falls under [E]xemption 5.  Id. (quoting Tax Analysts IRS, 117 F.3d 607, 620 (D.C. Cir. 1997)). Thus, any part document constitutes attorney work product, the document may withheld full, without the need for segregation.  Id. 
Time records are protected the work product doctrine.  Washington Bancorporation Said, CIV. 88-3111 RCL, 1989 946533, (D.D.C. May 10, 1989); Indian Law Res. Ctr. Dep't Interior, 477 Supp. 144, 148 (D.D.C. 1979); Long Dept Justice, 703 Supp. 84, 101 (N.D.N.Y. 2010). Long, the plaintiff sought disclosure under FOIA various categories documents relating the DOJ Civil Divisions case management system.  Among the information the DOJ sought withhold under Exemption were daily time reporting records attorneys and paralegals (for open cases only).  Id. 90. adopting the defendants position, the court explained that time records reflect the intensity the government attorneys efforts handling individual cases and would reveal opposing parties the amount time the governments attorneys were spending particular case and provide insight into the governments litigation strategy future stages.  Id. 101. 
The court reached similar conclusion Indian Law Res. Ctr., where the plaintiff sought disclosure materials describing legal services provided Indian tribes, including periodic law firm statements the Tribal Council, with attached vouchers describing detail legal services provided and travel expenses incurred. Indian Law Res. Ctr., 477 Supp. 146.  The court found the information privileged, explaining:  
Their detailed itemization persons contacted and locations visited 
particular days and precise amounts attorney time spent identified 
issues, frequently relates matters past, present potential future litigation.  
The vouchers reveal strategies developed Hopi counsel anticipation 
preventing preparing for legal action safeguard tribal interests.   Id. 148 (citing Hickman Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947). Outside the FOIA context, this Court relied Indian Law Res. Ctr. Washington Bancorporation holding that [t]ime records are protected the attorney work product doctrine.  No. Civ.A. 88-3111, 1989 946533, *5.     
There reason reach different conclusion here.  The withheld records would reveal privileged information about the IRS investigation.  Time records tell story, revealing not only whether Ms. Bosserman active the case, but also the intensity her activity, and where the broader course the investigation the activity took place.  Hermilla Decl.  16.  These insights, turn, can pieced together with other information about the investigation paint composite picture the governments strategies and investigative plans.  Id. effect, opening such information public scrutiny would force officials punch public time clock.  Wolfe U.S. Dept Health and Human Servs., 839 F.2d 768, 776 (D.C. Cir. 1988).  Through regular FOIA requests, interested parties could keep finger the pulse investigation monitoring its progress and examining the day-to-day work investigators.  Hermilla Decl.  13.  Such interference into the investigative process would run contrary the purpose the work product doctrine, which promote attorney preparation allowing them work with certain degree privacy, free from unnecessary intrusion opposing parties and their counsel. Hickman, 329 U.S. 510. the D.C. Circuit recognized, It strains credulity believe that such attention would not lead hasty and precipitous decision-making.  Id. 
Moreover, even the Court were conclude that Ms. Bossermans time records not constitute work product, the time records could still properly withheld the basis that they are part record that contains work product.  See Judicial Watch, 432 F.3d 371 (factual material itself privileged when appears within documents that are attorney work product.). any part document constitutes work product, there segregation required, and the document can withheld full.  Id.  Here, the time entries were part ICM records that contain Ms. Bossermans personal accounts how she spent her time work.  Hermilla Decl.  
16. Those accounts reveal Ms. Bossermans thinking and comments, and describe her investigative steps, including witness interviews, on-site visits, and consultations with supervisors and investigators. The disclosure these notes would clearly reveal theories and strategies formed contemplation litigation. The Time Records Are Protected The Deliberative Process Privilege addition being attorney work product, the time records are also shielded the deliberative process privilege. record covered the deliberative process privilege the extent reflect[s] advisory opinions, recommendations and deliberations comprising part process which governmental decisions and policies are formulated.  NLRB Sears, Roebuck Co., 421 U.S. 150 (citation omitted).  The privilege protects all papers which reflect the agency's group thinking the process working out its policy and determining what its law shall be. Id. 153 (internal quotations omitted). qualify for this privilege, record must be: 
(i) inter-agency intra-agency document, U.S.C.  552(b)(5); (ii) predecisional, Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729, 737 (D.C. Cir. 1997); and (iii) deliberative, id. threshold matter, the time records are predecisional because they were generated during the course ongoing criminal investigation, before any final decision was made.     
Moreover, the time records withheld are deliberative because they shed light the focus the Divisions investigation. There should considerable deference the [agencys] judgment what constitutes part the agency give-and-take  the deliberative process  which the decision itself made.  Chem. Mfrs. Assn Consumer Prod. Safety Commn, 600 Supp. 114, 118 (D.D.C. 1984) (citation omitted).  The agency the best position to know what confidentiality needed to prevent injury the quality agency decisions. Id. (quoting NLRB, 421 U.S. 151). [E]ven material that could characterized factual would expose the deliberative process that must covered the privilege. Wolfe, 839 F.2d 774 (citation omitted). 
The dates and number hours spent investigation are details the agency decision-making process that are protected from disclosure under the deliberative process privilege. Id. 775 (applying Exemption where information sought would reveal the timing the deliberative process). Time records reveal the extent the investigators activity the case, and doing invite inferences about the investigators timing, the priority her objectives, and her predecisional thought processes regarding the scope and focus the pending investigation.  Hermilla Decl.  16. short, they reflect the agencys group thinking during the course active investigation, and their disclosure would discourage candid and accurate timekeeping and interfere with the decision-making process.  See Russell U.S. Dept Air Force, 682 F.2d 1045, 1048 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (finding that disclosure draft manuscript could threaten candor drafting process and cause public confusion).        

III. The DOJ Properly Withheld Records Pursuant FOIA Exemption 7(A) 
Through Exemption 7(A), FOIA protects from disclosure records information compiled for law enforcement purposes when the disclosure such records could reasonably expected interfere with enforcement proceedings. U.S.C.  552(b)(7)(A). threshold matter, because the time records question were generated the course ongoing investigation into allegations that IRS officials violated federal law, there can question that the information withheld was compiled for law enforcement purposes.  See, e.g., Ctr. for Nat'l Sec. Studies U.S. Dept Justice, 331 F.3d 918, 926 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (recognizing that investigation relating breach federal law satisfies the threshold requirement Exemption 7(A)).  
Moreover, disclosure the time records can reasonably expected interfere with the ongoing criminal investigation.  The Hermilla declaration identifies some the harms that would likely result from disclosure.  For example, disclosure would prematurely reveal the scope and focus the investigation, thereby enabling interested parties extrapolate the governments strategy and circumvent the investigation.  Hermilla Decl.  13.  
Courts have consistently found that the risk prematurely disclosing the scope and focus investigation grounds for applying Exemption 7(A).  See, e.g., Ctr. for Nat'l Sec. Studies, 331 F.3d 928 (disclosure would enable Qaeda other terrorist groups map the course the investigation, thus giving them a composite picture); Solar Sources, Inc. United States, 142 F.3d 1033, 1039 (7th Cir. 1998) (disclosure could reveal scope and nature investigation); J.P. Stevens Co. Perry, 710 F.2d 136, 143 (4th Cir. 1983) (disclosure would hinder [the agency's] ability shape and control investigations); Kidder FBI, 517 Supp. 17, (D.D.C. 2007); Suzhou Yuanda Enter. Co. Customs Border Protection, 404 Supp. (D.D.C. 2005) (disclosure evidence criminal conduct would interfere with agency investigation [by] inform[ing] the public the evidence sought and scrutinized this type investigation); Envtl Prot. Servs. EPA, 364 Supp. 575, 588 (N.D. Va. 2005) (disclosure would prematurely reveal the EPA's case); Edmonds FBI, 272 Supp. 35, 
(D.D.C 2003) (recognizing potential harms that would result disclosure reveal[ed] the nature and scope the investigations, investigative activities, the cooperation particular individuals, the identity potential witnesses, and the investigative steps taken pursue interviews with individuals who can inform investigators).  Because disclosure the requested time records would risk similar harm the investigatory process, the records were properly withheld under Exemption 7(A). 

IV. The DOJ Properly Withheld Records Pursuant FOIA Exemptions 7(C) 
Exemption and 7(C) protect the privacy individuals from unwarranted invasion.  Specifically, Exemption protects personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure which would constitute clearly unwarranted invasion personal privacy. U.S.C.  552(b)(6). Exemption 7(C), which applies law-enforcement records, more expansive, allowing for the withholding records information compiled for law enforcement purposes the extent that the production such law enforcement records information could reasonably expected constitute unwarranted invasion personal privacy. U.S.C.  552(b)(7)(C).4 
Here, Exemptions and 7(C) were invoked protect Ms. Bossermans privacy interests her personal accounting how she spent her time work. least one court has recognized that government employees have reasonable expectation privacy their time records.  See Berger IRS, 288 Appx 829, 832 (3d Cir. 2008). Berger, the plaintiff sought, among other materials, the time records IRS officer charged with conducting tax investigation.  Id. 
830. holding that the time records had been properly withheld under Exemption the Court stated that the investigator has privacy interest her records whole because they are personal recording how she spent her time work.  Id. 832. That privacy interest outweighed the weak public interest disclosure the records, which would serve only the appellants narrow interest knowing how she investigated their particular case. Id. 833. 
There reason reach different outcome here.  Although Ms. Bossermans privacy interests have been somewhat diminished the public disclosure her involvement the IRS targeting investigation, she still has expectation privacy the non-disclosure information relating her work the IRS investigation.  See, e.g., Barnard U.S. Dept Homeland Sec., 598 Supp. (D.D.C. 2009) (Plaintiffs argument foreclosed preliminary matter, clear that the threshold requirement Exemption 7(C)that the requested information was compiled for law enforcement purposesis satisfied this case. Thus, the only question for the Court whether disclosing the time records could reasonably expected constitute unwarranted invasion personal privacy. U.S.C. 552(b)(7)(C). 
long line cases recognizing that individuals maintain interest their privacy even where some information known about them publicly.).  Specifically, any law enforcement employee involved criminal investigation has a substantial privacy interest non-disclosure information relating her work, because disclosure may result embarrassment and harassment. Manna U.S. Dept Justice, F.3d 1158, 1166 (3d Cir. 1995); Judicial Watch 
U.S. Dept Army, 402 Supp. 241, 250-51 (D.D.C. 2005) (The privacy interest civilian federal employees includes the right control information related themselves and avoid disclosures that could conceivably subject them annoyance harassment either their official private lives.).  For instance, disclosure time records could make the employee vulnerable annoyance and even harassment both her private and professional lives. could also invite speculation about more personal matters such medical family leave.  Hermilla Decl.  18; see also Lesar U.S. Dept Justice, 636 F.2d 472, 487 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (law enforcement personnel retain a legitimate interest preserving the secrecy matters that conceivably could subject them annoyance harassment either their official private lives.). 
Once the agency shows that legitimate privacy interest exists, then the burden flips the requester show that (1) the public interest sought advanced significant one, interest more specific than having the information for its own sake, and (2) the information likely advance that interest. Natl Archives Records Admin. Favish, 541 U.S. 157, 172 (2004); accord Boyd Criminal Div. the U.S. Dept Justice, 475 F.3d 381, 387 (D.C. Cir. 2007). For the purposes this analysis, the only relevant public interest the extent which disclosure the information sought would she[d] light the agencys performance its statutory duties otherwise let citizens know what their government to.  Bibles Or. Natural Desert Assn, 519 U.S. 355, 355-56 (1997) (internal citation omitted). 
Here, there public interest served revealing Ms. Bossermans time records, the disclosure the time records would not offer any meaningful insight into how the Civil Rights Division executing its statutory duties.  See, e.g., Judicial Watch Rossotti, 285 Supp. 17, (D.D.C. 2003) (Disclosing the names specific employees who are performing audit work, balance, would not reveal sufficiently how the IRS conducting its work outweigh those employees legitimate privacy expectations.).  The lack public interest employees records particularly true this case Ms. Bosserman only one member larger investigative team.  Hermilla Decl.   Thus her records would not accurately reflect the full scope and nature the overall investigation. 

CONCLUSION 
For the reasons set forth above, Defendant respectfully respects that this Court enter summary judgment its favor with respect the materials withheld the DOJ.  
November 2014 Respectfully submitted, 
JOYCE BRANDA Acting Assistant Attorney General 
ELIZABETH SHAPIRO Deputy Branch Director, Federal Programs Branch 
/s/ Sam Singer 
SAM SINGER 

D.C. Bar. No. 1014022 
Trial Attorney, Federal Programs Branch 
Civil Division 
United States Department Justice Massachusetts Ave., NW, Room 7145 
Washington, 20001 
Tel: (202) 616-8014 Fax: (202) 616-8470 
samuel.m.singer@usdoj.gov 
Counsel for Defendant 

Certificate Service hereby certify that November 2014, electronically filed the foregoing Motion with the Clerk the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notice this filing all parties. 
/s/ Sam Singer 
SAM SINGER 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
 FOR THE DISTRICT COLUMBIA
 
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC., 
425 Third Street, S.W., Suite 800 Washington, 20024 

Plaintiff, Case No. 1:14-cv-1024 (BAH) 

U.S. DEPARTMENT JUSTICE, 
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, 20530 
Defendant. 

DEFENDANTS STATEMENT MATERIAL FACTS NOT DISPUTE 
Pursuant Local Civil Rule 7(h) and connection with its motion for summary judgment under Rule 56(C) the Federal Rules Civil Procedure, defendant United States Department Justice hereby submits the following statement material facts which the defendant contends that there genuine issue.  The Justice Department currently conducting criminal investigation into alleged  
misconduct IRS employees connection with their handling applications for tax- 
exempt status certain organizations.  Hermilla Decl.   The investigation, which ongoing, being conducted career attorneys the Civil  
Rights Division and the Public Integrity Section the Criminal Division, addition  
agents from the Federal Bureau Investigation and Treasury Inspector General for Tax  
Administration.  Id.  The Justice Department has refused comment the status the IRS investigation  
any findings date. However, response inquiry from Congress, the Justice  

Department has acknowledged that Barbara Bosserman, senior legal counsel the  
Civil Rights Division, one the career attorneys conducting the investigation.  Id.  letter dated February 25, 2014 (Exhibit 1), Judicial Watch, Inc. (Plaintiff) made  
request under the Freedom Information Act (FOIA) for:  
All Justice Department records from the Interactive Case  
Management System detailing the number hours DOJ Attorney  
Barbara Bosserman expended the investigation the Internal  
Revenue Service targeting conservative organizations seeking tax- 
exempt status the 2010 and 2012 elections cycles.  
Hermilla Decl.  see also Compl. letter dated June 26, 2014, the Department denied access the information the  
FOIA request and advised judicial Watch its appeal rights.  Hermilla Decl.   The  
Department withheld records under Exemptions and 7(C).  Id.  After Judicial Watch filed this action, the Department initiated search the Interactive  
Case Management System for records responsive Judicial Watchs FOIA request.  Id.   
10.  The responsive material consists electronic records detailing Ms. Bossermans work  
the IRS investigation, including the specific dates she worked, the number hours she  
worked the investigation given date, and the type activity she performed.  
number entries the record contain notes describing how Ms. Bossermans time was  
spent. Id.  The attached Declaration Nelson Hermilla provides detailed explanation the  
Departments search this case, well the documents that the Department withheld  
pursuant appropriate FOIA exemptions, response plaintiffs FOIA request.    

November 2014 Respectfully submitted, 
JOYCE BRANDA Acting Assistant Attorney General 
ELIZABETH SHAPIRO Deputy Branch Director, Federal Programs Branch 
/s/ Sam Singer 
SAM SINGER 
D.C. Bar. No. 1014022 Trial Attorney, Federal Programs Branch Civil Division United States Department Justice Massachusetts Ave., NW, Room 7145 Washington, 20001 Tel: (202) 616-8014 Fax: (202) 616-8470 samuel.m.singer@usdoj.gov 
Counsel for Defendant 
Certificate Service hereby certify that November 2014, electronically filed the foregoing Statement Material Facts Not Dispute with the Clerk the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notice this filing all parties. 
/s/ Sam Singer 
SAM SINGER THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
 FOR THE DISTRICT COLUMBIA  
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC., 
  Plaintiff,  Civ. No. 1:14-cv-1024 (BAH)  
U.S. DEPARTMENT JUSTICE, 
 Defendant.  

[PROPOSED] ORDER 
Defendant has moved for summary judgment pursuant Federal Rule Civil Procedure 56. Upon full consideration Defendants motion and all materials submitted relation Defendants motion, hereby ORDERED that the motion GRANTED. ORDERED. 
        ___________________________ The Honorable Beryl Howell United States District Court Judge