Skip to content

Get Judicial Watch Updates!


Judicial Watch • William Jacobson v District of Columbia order 003283

William Jacobson v District of Columbia order 003283

William Jacobson v District of Columbia order 003283

Page 1: William Jacobson v District of Columbia order 003283


Number of Pages:18

Date Created:December 8, 2014

Date Uploaded to the Library:December 12, 2014

Tags:003283, william jacobson

File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!

See Generated Text   ∨

Autogenerated text from PDF

Case No. 2013 003283 
Judge Robert Okun 
This matter before the Court two Motions: Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment ("Plaintiffs Motion"), filed August 15, 2014, Defendant's Opposition thereto, filed September 2014, and Plaintiffs Reply, filed September 12, 2014; and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment ("Defendant's Motion"), filed August 15, 2014, Plaintiffs Opposition thereto, filed September 15, 2014, and Defendant's Reply, filed September 19, 2014.1 Upon consideration the Motions, the Oppositions, the Replies, and the entire record herein, Plaintiffs Motion granted part, and Defendant's Motion granted part. 
This dispute under the District Columbia Freedom Information Act, D.C. Code.  2-531, seq., ('FOIA" "DC FOTA'') between Plaintiff William Jacobson ("'Plaintiff') and the District Columbia (the 'District"). Plaintiff the owner and operator Legal InsutTection Blog, online blog focused politics and law. (Compl. 2). December 23, 2012, David Gregory, the former host the television show "Meet the Press," exhibited high-capacity ammunition magazine the air during interview concerning fireann policies 
Plaintiff originally brought this suit against the District Columbia Office the Attorney General ("OAG") and the District Columbia Metropolitan Police Department {"MPD"). its February 27, 2014 Order, this Court substituted the District Columbia for OAG and MPD. Thus, although the case caption refers "Defendants," the District Columbia the sole Defendant this case. 
Washington, DC, and the possession high-capacity ammunition magazines was violation 
District Columbia law. (Campi. at, 6-7). MPD conducted investigation this incident, 
but OAG declined prosecute anyone connection with the broadcast. (Com pl. at, Pl. 
Statement Undisputed Material Facts ("SMF") 3). January 14, 2013, Plaintiff 
submitted FOIA request the District Columbia Office the Attorney General ("OAG") 
and the District Columbia Metropolitan Police Department ("MPD"). (Campi. 10). 
Specifically, the FOIA request sought: 	
The January 20I letter from Lee Levine behalf David Gregory, referenced the letter dated January 11, from Attorney General lrvi Nathan Mr. Levine which was publicly disclosed that date. 	
All communications between the District Columbia Office Attorney General and/or Metropolitan Police Department, the one hand, and legal counsel for David Gregory and/or NBC News, the other hand, with regard the incident involving the display television Mr. Gregory alleged high-capacity ammunition clip (the "Gregory incident"). 	
All documents the possession the MPD and OAG regarding the Gregory Incident, the extent not exempted from disclosure under applicable law, including but not limited witness statements, evidence review and possession records, interview notes, and forensic testing. 

(Id.). February 20, 2013, the OAG informed Plaintiff that was withholding certain 
responsive records pursuant D.C. Code 2-534(a)(3)(A)(i), (a)(4), and (e). (Pl.'s Mot. 
Pl.'s SMF at, 6). April 17, 2013, MPD produced certain responsive records Plaintiff, but 
stated that was withholding other responsive records pursuant the exemptions FOIA. 
(Pl.'s Mot. Pl.'s SMF 7). Plaintiff filed the instant Complaint May 13, 2013, arguing 
that the District failed comply with FOIA, and requesting that the Court "order Defendant[] 
produce the requested public ree-0rds without further delay." (Comp!. 4). Following the filing 
ofPlaintiff's Complaint, Defendant produced additional records that were previously withheld, but Plaintiff argues that Defendant continues withhold responsive records. (Pl.'s Mot. 4). its Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendant argues that summary judgment appropriate because the District's search for responsive documents was reasonable, and has produced all documents that were responsive Plaintiffs request that were not subject exemptions. (Def.'s Mot. 2). Further, Defendant contends that properly provided the legal justification for all withho !dings the form privilege log. (Id. 7). Defendant asserts that many documents were redacted pursuant exemptions and avoid the disclosure personal information that would constitute unwarranted invasion privacy. (Jd. 19). 
Additionally, Defendant states that the majority the redacted information exempt from 
disclosure pursuant FOIA exemption because protected the attorneyclient privilege, the deliberative process privilege, the work product doctrine, and/or the doctrine prosecutorial immunity. (Id. his Opposition, Plaintiff argues that Defendant's Motion should denied because Defendant has failed meet its burden proof required under the law. (Pl.'s Opp. 1-2). Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that the privilege log Defendant relies upon inadmissible 
evidence, and, even were admissible, does not sufficiently identify the documents, and the descriptions and reasoning contained therein are "vague and inadequate." (Id. 7). Plaintiff 
also notes that the District did not submit any evidence demonstrate that satisfied the 
requirement attempt segregate exempt information from non-exempt information. (Id. 8). 
Finally, Plaintiff alleges that the District's search response Plaintiffs FOIA request was 
both untimely and unreasonable. (Id. 1-12). 
requests that the Court "order Defendant conduct reasonable search for all non-exempt responsive records and produce all non-exempt, responsive records.'' (Pl.'s Mot. 1). 
support his Motion, Plaintiffcontends that Defendant has failed meet the requisite burden proof FOIA case because MPD failed conduct reasonable search and Defendant has not provided sufficient evidence justify its withholdings. (Id. 8-9). Plaintiff alleges that was unreasonable for MPD limit its search for email records for only the seven-day period December 21, 2012 through December 28, 2012. (Id. 8). Additionally, Plaintiff argues that the privilege log Defendant has provided not admissible evidence, and, even ifit is, does not satisfy the requirements proper Vaughn index order meet Defendant's burden because does not provide sufficient details reasoning for each withheld document. (/d. 9). Defendant's Opposition Plaintiffs Motion, Defendant relies and incorporates the arguments made Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Specifically, Defendant maintains that MPD's search its records was reasonable, and that its privilege log sufficient justify the documents, portions thereof, that are being withheld. (Def.'s Opp. 6-10). August 15, 2014, the day the parties filed their Motions, MPD produced approximately two hundred additional responsive records Plaintiff. (Def.'s Opp. Pl.'s Mot. n.4; Pl.'s Reply 6). These additional documents were result ofMPD conducting new search which expanded the sources its search and extended the time frame through January 31, 2013. (Deel. David Brown, Art. Ex. Def.'s Mot. for Extension Time Nunc Pro Tune; Def.'s Mot. 16; Def.'s Opp. Pl.'s Reply 6). Defendant contends that this new search was conducted after Plaintiff informally requested that MPD expand the time frame for its search June 17, 2014. (Def.'sMot. 16; Def.'s Opp. 5). November 20, this Court conducted hearing the parties' pending Motions. 
Plaintiffs counsel stated that, light the subsequent search conducted Defendant 
behalfofMPD for the time period beginning December 21, 2012 and ending January 31, 2013, 
Plaintiff satisfied with the current scope the MPD search. Furthermore, Plaintiff not 
challenging the scope the OAG search. Thus, Plaintiff longer questioning the adequacy the search conducted response his FOIA request. However, Plaintiff continues argue 
that the delay conducting proper search and producing the requested documents warrants 
awarding Plaintiff attorney fees. Additionally, Plaintiff continues question the sufficiency 
the privilege log, whether the withheld information falls within the specified exemptions, and 
whether Defendant properly segregated the exempt information from the non-exempt 
information. Following the hearing, Defendant submitted the Court both the redacted and 
unredacted versions the documents produced its searches. This Court has now conducted camera review those documents, and the pending Motions are ripe for resolution.2 
LEGAL DISCUSSION Summary Judgment Standard FOIA Cases 
Under Rule 56(c), summary judgment appropriate the "pleadings, depositions, 
answers interrogatories, and admissions file, together with the affidavits" show that there genuine issue any material fact and the moving party entitled judgment matter law. Super. Ct. Civ. 56(c); District Columbia Fraternal Order Police Metro. Police 
properly withheld from review the Vaughn index. See District Columbia Fraternal Order Police, A.3d 332, 344 (D.C. 2011) (J. Ruiz, concurring) ("In camera review may particularly appropriate when either the agency affidavits are insufficiently detailed permit meaningful review exemption claims ... when the 
dispute turns the contents the withheld documents and not the parties' interpretations those documents .... 
(citation omitted). 
when the record, including pleadings together with affidavits, indicates that there genuine issue any material fact and that the moving party entitled judgment matter law."). "'In the FOIA context, this requires that [the court] ascertain whether the agency has sustained its burden demonstrating the documents requested are exempt from disclosure under the FOIA."' Id. {quoting Multi Media LLC Dep Agric., 515 F.3d 1224, 1227 (D.C. Cir. 2008)); see also, Center for Auto Safety Nat'[ Highway Traffic Safety Admin, Supp. 33-34 (D.D.C. 2000) ("Tn FOIA cases, the Court may grant summary judgment the basis affidavits declarations that explain why requested information falls within claimed exemption, long the affidavits declarations are sufficiently detailed, non-conclusory, and submitted good faith, and long plaintiffhas significant basis for questioning their reliability.") (further citations omitted). Whether the agency has sustained its burden question oflaw. F.O.P., A.3d 264 (citing Wemhofjv. District Columbia, 887 A.2d 1004, 008 (D.C. 2005); Horowitz Peace Corps, 428 F.3d 271, 278 (D.C. Cir. 2005)). 
The District's FOIA includes the policy "that all persons are entitled full and complete information regarding the affairs government and the official acts those who represent them public officials and employees." D.C. Code  2-531; Fraternal Order o.f'Police, Metro. 
Polfr:e Dep Labor Committee District Columbia, A.3d 347, 353-54 (D.C. 2013). Because this policy, "FOJA's provisions are 'be construed with the view toward expansion public access and the minimization costs and time delays persons requesting the info1mation."' Id. 354 (citing D.C. Code 2531). Specifically, those provisions '"giving citizens the right access are generously construed, while the statutory exemptions from disclosure are narrowly construed, with ambiguities resolved favor disclosure.'" Id. 
seeking withhold requested information demonstrate that particular exemption applies. 
When asserting privilege, the government agency issue cannot simply state that all responsive documents are exempt. Instead, when claiming exemption: government agency must manner that permits adequate adversary testing the agency's claimed right exemption, and enable the trial court make rational decision whether the withheld material must produced without actually viewing the documents themselves and without thwarting the claimed 
exemption's purpose. 355 (internal citations and punctuation omitted). The agency has met its burden its submission "describes the docwnents and the justifications for nondisclosure with reasonably specific detail, demonstrates that the infotmation withheld logically falls within the claimed exemption, and not controverted either contrary evidence the record nor evidence agency bad faith." ld. 355-56 (quoting Military Audit Project Casey, 565 F.2d 724, 738 
(D.C. Cir. 1981)); see also, Fraternal Order Police, Metro. Police Dep District Columbia, A.3d 803, 817 (D.C. 2014) ("[T]he District can satisfy its burden provide sufficiently detailed description what refusing produce and why including all the necessary information Vaughn index alone; however, the index must supply enough information enable the com1 assess whether the District properly invoked the privilege.") (internal citations omitted). 
II. Sufficiency the Privilege Log 
Plaintiff, both his Motion and his Opposition Defendant's Motion, argues that the privilege log that Defendant submitted insufficient. When government agency withholds items responsive FOIA request, "the government required provide detailed index 
why the exemption applies that item." Spirko United States Postal Serv., 147 F.3d 992, 997-98 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (internal citations omitted). defendant "can satisfy its burden provide sufficiently detailed description what refusing produce and why including all the necessary information Vaughn index." F.O.P., A.3d 358. The index log the Defendant relies must supply enough information for court assess whether Defendant properly invoked the privileges. Id. the Vaughn index does not provide sufficiently detailed explanation allow the court make novo determination the claims exemption, the court has several options. including inspecting the documents camera. Spirko, 147 997; see also Vaughn Rosen, 484 F.2d 820, 825 (D.C. Cir. 1973) ("the trial court, the trier fact, may and often does examine the document camera determine whether the Government has properly characterized the information exempt"). Such review the court can sufficient test the accuracy the characterization the government where the information the document and the reason for the withholding not extensive. Vaughn, 484 F.2d 825. this case, Defendant submitted privilege Jog with its Motion Dismiss, and supplemented its log when filed its Motion for Summary Judgment. The privilege log includes entries for each document, specifying the document's date, description the document, the author, the addressee, the privilege invoked for the document, and which agency produced the document. addition, this Cou1t conducted camera review all documents produced result the FOIA request. The privilege log gave general description the information Defendant was required produce, and any question its sufficiency has been resolved with 
respect providing explanations for its withholdings. 
Ill. Personal Privacy Exemptions 
Defendant's privilege log identifies pages documents where portions were redacted pursuant the exemptions contained D.C. Code 2-534(a)(2) and/or 2-534(a)(3)(C) for personal privacy reasons. D.C. Code 2-534(a)(2) exempts "[i]nformation personal nature where the public disclosure thereof would constitute clearly unwarranted invasion personal 
privacy." addition, Section 2-524(a)(3)(C) exempts "[i]nvestigatory records compiled for 
law-enforcement purposes ... but only the extent that the production such records would ... constitute unwarranted invasion personal privacy." 
The term ''unwarranted" requires that the Court "balance the public interest disclosure 
against the privacy interest Congress and the Council the District Columbia intended the exemption protect." F.O.P., A.3d 265. analyzing the privacy exemption the Court must: determine whether there least minimis privacy interest stake; evaluate the public interest disclosing the information; and "balance the competing interests determine whether the invasion privacy clearly unwarranted." Id. 266. Courts this jurisdiction have concluded that individuals have privacy interest personal information, such names, addresses, and other identifying information, even that information not embarrassing intimate nature. 265-66. The public interest involved the balancing analysis "only the extent which disclosure the information sought would shed light agency's performance its statutory duties otherwise let citizens know what their government to." Id. 266 (internal quotations omitted). Ultimately, whether the public the degree which disclosure would further the purpose FOIA." Id. this case, the redactions made pursuant the personal privacy exemptions consist 
names, email addresses, and other contact information Jaw enforcement officers, government 
employees, individuals interviewed the police, and other members the public who were involved the investigation. clear that individuals have privacy interest this type information. Id. 265-66. While the public has interest the government's conduct, the "public interest has been adequately served disclosure the content the emails with only 
the identities [or other contact information] the authors redacted," then redactions 
identifying information are permitted. Id. 268. Having reviewed the privilege log and the docwnents themselves, camera, the Court finds that the unredacted portions the documents that have been released inform the public the substance and content the documents, and that disclosure the redacted identifying information would not shed any additional light the conduct the Defendant. such, the Court finds that Defendant properly applied exemptions and redacting the withheld infonnation. 
IV. Exemption Withholdings 
Exemption FOTA exempts from disclosure "[i]nter-agency intra-agency 
memorandums letters ... which would not available Jaw party other than public 
body litigation with the public body." D.C. Code 2-534(a)(4). Defendant relies this exemption for its refusal disclose portions large number documents based various 
privileges. This exemption also used justify the sole document withheld its entirety, 
affidavit support arrest warrant for David Gregory, that was declined the OAG January 11, 2013. Specifically, Defendant argues that these documents are exempt under the 
prosecutorial immunity doctrine. Deliberative Process Privilege Standard 
Defendant identifies many documents that include redacted information withheld 
pursuant the deliberate process privilege under exemption The Court Appeals has held that exemption substantively equivalent exemption the federal FOTA. O.P, A.3d 354 17. both D.C. and federal FOIA, this exemption incorporates the deliberative process privilege. Id. 354; see also, D.C. Code 2-534(e) ("The deliberative process privilege [is] incorporated under the inter-agency memoranda exemption listed subsection (a)(4) this section"). "The deliberative process privilege 'shelters documents reflecting advisory opinions, recommendations and deliberations comprising part process which governmental decisions and policies are formulated."' F.0.P., A.3d 354-55 (quoting Petroleum Info. Corp. Dep Interior, 976 F.2d 1429, 1433 (D.C. Cir. 1992)). order properly withheld under the deliberative process privilege, information and/or documents must both predecisional and deliberative. Id. 355. document 
predecisional was prepared order assist agency decision maker arriving his 
decision rather than support decision already made." Id. determining document 
predecisional, "the court must first able pinpoint agency decision policy which [the 
document] contributed." Id. Second, "material deliberative reflects the give-and-take the consultative process." Id. ascertaining whether material deliberative, the court must decide whether disclosure the particular information "would discourage candid discussion within the agency." Id. (quotingAccess Reporlsv. Dep'to.f 
Justice, 926 F.2d 1192, 1195 (D.C. Cir. 1991 )). deliberative document generally reflects the personal opinions the author and 
process not protected" under this exemption. The deliberative process privilege does not apply "when material could not reasonably said reveal agency's official's mode formulating exercising policy-implicating judgment." Id. (quoting Petroleum Info, 976 F.2d 1435). 
Furthermore, documents that are part continuous process agency decisionmaking" can both predecisional and deliberative. Judicial Watch, Inc. United States Dep 't. Homeland Sec., 736 F.Supp. 202, 208 (D.D.C. 2010); Citizens for Responsibility Ethics Wash. U.S. Dep Homeland Sec., 514 F.Supp. 36, (D.D.C. 2007) (finding agency's declaration that the withheld materials concerned deliberations regarding on-going response Hurricane Katrina sufficient indicia deliberative process involved); Citizens for Responsibility Ethics Wash. U.S. Dep't Labor, 478 F.Supp. 77, (D.D.C. 2007) (finding discussions regarding how respond media report commenting agency's policies was predecisional and deliberative). Attorney-Client P1ivilege and the Work P1oduct Doctrine Standard 
Exemption DC's FOIA exempts those documents that are normally considered privileged the civil discovery context. Maydak United States DOJ, 254 Supp. 23, 
(D.D.C. 2003); F.0.P. District Columbia, A.3d 357. '"As such, [this exemption] interpreted encompass, inter alia ..the attorney-client privilege, and the attorney work 
product privilege." Maydak, 254 Supp. (internal quotations omitted). its privilege 
log, Defendant relies the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine withhold 
the majority its documents pursuant exemption 4.3 Defendant also relies the prosecutorial immunity doctrine withhold portions several documents. Prosecutorial immunity not privilege that can used withhold document pursuant exemption ofDC's 
professional legal advisor made the process obtaining legal assistance. Jones United States, 828 A.2d 169, 174 (D.C. 2003). "Work product" consists of"any document prepared anticipation litigation for the attorney." Public Defender Serv., 831 A.2d 890, 910 
(D.C. 2003) (internal quotations omitted). Generally, party may only obtain documents and tangible things that were prepared anticipation litigation upon showing substantial need for that work-product and that the party unable, without undue hardship, obtain the substantial equivalent the infmmation other means. Super. Ct. Civ. 26(b)(3). Application All Redacted Documents large number documents listed the privilege log were redacted pursuant exemption discussing this exemption, Defendant states that the withheld information include[s] communications among attorneys within the MPD General Counsel's Office, the Deputy Attorney General for the OAG Public Safety Division, and MPD employees. these communications, District employees and officials deliberate how respond queries from members the general public. They also request, and respond requests for, legal counsel and reflect discussions about how proceed with criminal investigation and possible criminal prosecution. (Def. Mot. 23). 
The Court has reviewed camera the documents withheld Defendant and identified the privilege log withheld pursuant the deliberative process privilege, the attorney-client privilege, and the work product doctrine. The Court finds that Defendant properly applied the privilege all documents produced redacted form because they are predecisional and deliberative, and contain communications benveen client and attorney made the process 
FOlA, and Defendant has not provided any case law support for its argument. Therefore, the Court will not apply this reasoning assessing whether the infomtation may witWteld, and will focus its detennination the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. 
portions the redacted documents. Application the Affidavit 
The only document withheld its entirety from Plaintiff was the affidavit completed MPD used support arrest warrant for David Gregory (the "Affidavit"). The Affidavit was submitted the OAG order for the OAG make detennination whether prosecute Mr. Gregory. The OAG chose not prosecute Mr. Gregory, and the Affidavit therefore was never utilized request arrest warrant. (Def. Mot. 23). Defendant claims that the Affidavit was withheld pursuant exemption attomey work product and under the prosecutorial immunity doctrine. (Id 23-24). Defendant asserts that the Affidavit should not produced because "was never executed submitted the Court and, its very nature, reflects the detennination prosecutors about whether proceed with this prosecution based the info1mation provided them the MPD." (Id.). 
Plaintiff argues that both the Affidavit and anest waiTant were improperly withheld, and that the Court should order Defendant produce these. (Pl.'s Opp. 9-10).4 contends that the Affidavit was "created and finalized MPD" before being submitted the OAG, and "[t]he assertion that the affidavit was not ultimately signed does not alter any way that was final document created MPD." (Id 10). Thus, Plaintiff states, none the justifications Defendant cites apply the Affidavit and cannot withheld pursuant exemption (Id. 11). The Comt agrees with the Plaintiff. 
Defendant states that the OAG declined prosecute anyone relation this incident and therefore warrant was 
never created issued. The Court, having reviewed all documents camera, finds that, because the OAG 
determined that would not prosecute Mr. Gregory, warrant was ever created issued and therefore none can produced. 
authorizes withholding under exemption FOIA. Defendant has not provided and the Court cannot find any case law support the assertion that the doctrine prosecutorial immunity can utilized withhold infonnation under exemption Therefore, prosecutorial immunity not proper justification for withholding the affidavit. 
Defendant's second argument for withholding the affidavit that protected attorney work product because reflects the prosecutor's decision-making process determining whether prosecute Mr. Gregory. (Def.'s Reply 7). Although the work product doctrine can justification for withholding documents responsive FOIA request under exemption Defendant's argument fails for two reasons. First, the document appears have been prepared MPD Detective Wayne Gerrish, not attorney, does not appear that the attorney work product doctrine applicable initial matter. 
Second, the extent that the document contains the declination decision made OAG, final agency decision not covered the attorney work product doctrine. Indeed, discussed supra, exemption FOIA substantively equivalent exemption the federal FOIA, O.P, A.3d 354 17, and federal courts have consistently found that final orders and opinions government agencies cannot exempt from disclosure pursuant exemption because, "[b]y definition, final opinions ... cannot inter-agency intra-agency memorandums.'" Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corp. Renegotiation Bd., 482 F.2d 710, 716 
{D.C. Cir. 1973); see also NLRB Sears, Roebuck Co., 421 U.S. 132, 153-54 (1975) ("[W]ith respect least final opinions,' which not only invariably explain agency action already taken agency decision already made, but also constitute 'final dispositions' matters agency, ... hold that Exemption can never apply."). This because the policies supporting 
decision has been communicated the public decision-maker, document whose whole purpose and effect are suppo1t that decision disclosed." Grumman Aircrqft, 482 F.2d 
719. The decision dismiss charge not indict someone considered final decision disposition matter. NLRB, 421 U.S. 158; see also Niemeier Watergate Special Prosecution Force, 565 F.2d 967, 971-72 (71h Cir. 1977) (finding that the decision the Watergate Special Prosecution Force Report not seek indictment President Nixon was final disposition for purposes FOIA). 
The Affidavit question was the final version document completed the MPD and submitted the OAG order for the OAG make the decision whether prosecute Mr. Gregory. The decision not bring charges against Mr. Gregory was final decision made the OAG, communicated the public, and memorialized writing the bottom the Affidavit. Therefore, the Court finds that FOIA exemption does not apply the Affidavit 
5and cannot withheld. such, Defendant must produce the Affidavit Plaintiff. Segregation Responsive Documents 
Plaintiff also argues that the Defendant did not reasonably segregate the portions the documents that were not exempt and provide them the Plaintiff. D.C.'s FOIA provides that "[a]ny reasonably segregable portion public record shall provided after deletion those portions which may withheld" pursuant the other exemptions from disclosure. D.C. Code  2-534(b); see also, District Columbia Fraternal Order Police, Police Labor Comm., A.3d 332, 345 (D.C. 2011). general. portion "reasonably segregable" can separated from the exempt information without rendering the disclosed portion unintelligible and The Court aware that the Affidavit contains certain personal information pertaining Mr. Gregory and Detective Gerrish. Therefore, Defendant shall permitted redact information that exempt under the personal privacy exemption prior producing tlte Affidavit Plaintiff. 
withholding entire document and not segregating the non-exempt portions only can "demonstrate that the exempt and nonexempt information are inextricably intet1wined, such that the excision exempt information would impose significant costs the agency and produce edited document with little informational value.'' Id. (quoting Antonelli Federal Bur. Prisons, 623 F.Supp.2d 55, (D.D.C. 2009)). 
The Court has reviewed camera the documents withheld Defendant and identified the privilege log. Only one document was withheld its entirety, and was not withheld because could not reasonably segregated. Fm1hetmore, the Defendant produced the remaining documents either with modifications with redactions. After reviewing the documents, the Court finds that the Defendant, with the exception the Affidavit, reasonably segregated the responsive portions the documents that redacted. Therefore, Defendant has met its burden with regard segregability. 
VI. Plaintiff's Request for Attorney's Fees 
Finally, Plaintiff's final argument, made the Motions Hearing, that Plaintiff should awarded attorney's fees for expenses incurred result Defendant's delay conducting adequate search. Plaintiff argues that Defendant's initial search MPD's records was insufficient, and that although the subsequent search conducted MPD adequate, the fact that Defendant delayed for year and half conducting this search warrants the award attorney's fees. The Court finds that this argument, first articulated the Motions Hearing, has not been fully briefed Plaintiff, and Defendant has not had adequate opportunity respond. Indeed, Plaintiff has not addressed any the factors set fo1th Fraternal Order Police, 1'vfetropolitan Police Dep't Labor Comm. District Columbia, A.3d 822, 828-29 
(D.C. 2012), establish that entitled attorney's fees this case. Therefore, the Court will not award any fees Plaintiff this time. However, the Court will allow Plaintiff file motion for costs and attorney's fees, and will give Defendant opportunity respond this motion before ruling this issue. 
Accordingly, this 9th day December, 2014, hereby ORDERED that Defendant District Columbia's Motion for Summary Judgment GRANTED PART; further ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment GRANTED PART; further ORDERED that Defendant shall produce the Affidavit Plaintiff within thit1y (30) days the date this Order; and further ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file any Motion for Costs and Attomey's Fees January 2015, and that Defendant shall respond any such Motion February 2015. 

Judge Robert Okun  
(Signed Chambers)  
Copies via eService to:  
Ramona Cotca  
James Peterson  
Counsel for Plaintiff  
Sara Tonnesen  
Doug Rosenbloom  
Grace Graham  
Counsel for Defendant The Court conducted camera review the documents because was unable determine whether they were Plaintiff argues that emails mentioning warrant confirm his belief that arrest warrant exists. However,