Case 1:13-cv-01461-JDB Document 23 Filed 07/18/14 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MARIA ANDREA MEZERHANE DE SCHNAPP, Plaintiff, v.

Civil Action No. 13-1461 (JDB)

UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, Defendant.

ORDER Before the Court are [16] [18] the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment in this action seeking the disclosure of agency records under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552. Only 46 pages remain in dispute. Defendant United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") claims that these 46 pages are properly withheld under various FOIA exemptions (14 pages withheld in full, 32 pages withheld in part). Plaintiff Maria Andrea Mezerhane de Schnapp ("Mezerhane") disagrees, and seeks additional disclosures under FOIA. In the alternative, Mezerhane requests that the Court review the disputed documents in camera, to evaluate independently the merit of the exemption claims asserted by USCIS. FOIA explicitly authorizes in camera review, in appropriate cases, at the district court's discretion. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) ("[T]he court . . . may examine the contents of such agency records in camera to determine whether such records or any part thereof shall be withheld under any of the exemptions set forth in subsection (b) of this section."). To be sure, "[w]hile FOIA provides the Court the option to conduct in camera review, it by no means compels the

Case 1:13-cv-01461-JDB Document 23 Filed 07/18/14 Page 2 of 2

exercise of that option." Hall & Assocs. v. EPA, 846 F. Supp. 2d 231, 246 (D.D.C. 2012); see also Spirko v. USPS, 147 F.3d 992, 996 (D.C. Cir. 1998) ("The ultimate criterion is simply this: Whether the district judge believes that in camera inspection is needed in order to make a responsible de novo determination on the claims of exemption.") (internal quotation marks omitted). After careful consideration of the parties' memoranda and the summary judgment record, the Court, in its discretion, has determined that it would be most efficient to review the disputed documents in camera, in unredacted form. Under the unique facts and circumstances of this case, "in camera inspection is needed in order to make a responsible de novo determination on the claims of exemption." Spirko, 147 F.3d at 996. Specifically, for example, in camera review will allow the Court to evaluate whether any public interest in disclosure might outweigh thirdparty privacy interests. After reviewing the documents, the Court will address the arguments advanced by the parties and will resolve the pending cross-motions for summary judgment. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that USCIS shall produce to the Court unredacted copies of all disputed documents remaining at issue in this case; it is further ORDERED that USCIS shall produce to the Court the redacted versions of any documents that (1) have already been produced to Mezerhane, and (2) remain disputed in this case; and it is further ORDERED that such productions shall be completed by not later than July 31, 2014. SO ORDERED. /s/ JOHN D. BATES United States District Judge Dated: July 18, 2014