Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED; 3. Plaintiff is entitled to a waiver of fees as to his February 26, 2016 Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii). Defendant is hereby ordered to furnish Plaintiff with all records responsive to that FOIA Request “without any charge,” id., within seven days of the date of this order.

0, 53 Header: “FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // DELIBERATIVE” (all pages) Footer: “FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // DELIBERATIVE” (only first page) Watermark: “DRAFT” (all pages) Outline Doc 54 is an outline of the draft report described above in this Vaughn index. Doc 54, 117-123 Doc 54 Header: “DRAFT // FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY” (all pages) Watermark: “DRAFT” (all pages) Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 84 of 86 E Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 85 of 86 1 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS D/B/A NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) This Vaughn index serves to provide a detailed explanation for withholding in full two draft reports related to Secure Communities statistical monitoring under the deliberative process privilege pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(5). The draft reports have been assigned document number 55 (totaling six pages) and document number 56 (totaling 2 pages).

The document was originally and is currently UNCLASSIFIED. The Department released the document in part, withholding the names of Department employees under FOIA Exemption 6, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6). Individuals, including government employees, have a privacy interest in protecting their personal information from public disclosure, because its release could result in harassment or unsolicited attention and would not shed light on governmental operations.

Plaintiffs remain free to reassert the need for in camera review in their response to the addi- tional submissions forthcoming from defendants. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court defers resolu- tion of the parties' cross-motions for summary judg- ment and orders defendants to provide the materials described above in support of their argument that the documents requested by plaintiffs are exempt from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A). A separate order has been posted on this date.

¶¶ 130-135, the FBI’s assertion of Exemption 7(D) must be sustained. Finally, the FBI also properly withheld information under Exemption 7(E), which protects “techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions,” 5 U.S.C. § 552(7)(E), because, as demonstrated in the section on Exemption 2 and the Declaration of Mr. Hardy, disclosure would risk circumvention of the law, see supra at 41-45; see also Hardy Decl. ¶¶ 136-139; see Voinche, 940 F. Supp. at 332 (information relating to protection of Supreme Court and Justices protected under Exemption 7(E), as well as “high 2” exemption); Gordon, 388 F. Supp. 2d at 1035-37 (materials created in course of maintenance of terrorist watch lists protected under Exemption 7(E), as well as Exemption 2, because terrorists could educate Case 1:06-cv-00096-HHK Document 29 Filed 09/15/2006 Page 84 of 87 -79- themselves about watch list procedures and devise ways to circumvent watch lists).

FOIA Exemption 7E exempts from disclosure “records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes . . . [which] would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(E). Based on my review of the documents at issue, I have determined that release of DIF scores, as described above, would necessarily disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions that could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law.

(5) USCIS shall produce a legally adequate Vaughn index of any and all responsive agency records withheld under claim of exemption as enumerated under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1)- Case 2:15-cv-06218-JCZ-DEK Document 82-4 Filed 05/22/17 Page 1 of 2 2 (9); or in the alternative, USCIS shall present all responsive agency records withheld under any lawful FOIA exemption for an in camera inspection. (6) USCIS is enjoined from continuing to withhold any non-exempt responsive agency information pursuant to Plaintiff's FOIA request, as mandated by FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552. New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ day of _______________, 2017.

14. Further, Case4:06-cv-02812-YGR Document115 Filed06/14/12 Page26 of 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 26 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorney Fees Per 5 U.S.C.§552(a)(4)(E) lead counsel Colleen Flynn demonstrates that her reasonable market billing rate is $475 per hour. Flynn Dec., para.

Congress could have drafted FOIA’s general fee waiver provision to apply only to FOIA’s regular fee schedules, but it did not. In fact, not only did Congress place no textual limitations on the types of fees that must be waived under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii), but the legislative history of that provision makes clear that it was intended to apply to all fees. See 132 Cong. Rec. 29617 (stating that “all of the fees chargeable to any requester may be waived or reduced if disclosure of the information is in the public interest . . . .” (emphasis added)).

Document C06219548 is fully subsumed in Document C06219550. The Department withheld the three documents in part under FOIA Exemption 5, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5), pursuant to the deliberative process privilege and withheld Document C06219550 in part under the presidential communications privilege. Release of this material, which is pre-decisional and deliberative with respect to guidance provided by a Department component to PA for use in communications to the press and contains the authors’ personal opinions and preliminary recommendations regarding that guidance, could reasonably be expected to have a chilling effect on the open and frank expression of ideas, recommendations, and opinions that occurs when government officials are developing a response on a sensitive subject.