Del 2
Three of the eighteen documents located have been withheld based on Exemption (b) (1) which remain classified after reexamination for classification purposes, as described in the Hurst Declaration, filed July 26, 1991. Plaintiff contends that the mere identification of classified materials by number and date is insufficient and that the Vaughn index does not explicate the basis for withholding on the ground that national security would be endangered. Plaintiff has amplified this claim by noting press and television media speculations as to aspects of the matter which plaintiff assumes were accurate leaks, thus diluting confidentiality claims. The very nature of the underlying materials, however, which allegedly involve assassination of a prime minister of a friendly country, implicate international security concerns sufficient on their face to justify classification given an apparent two-way exchange of information with another government concerning a suspected assassin. Passage of time, media reports and informed or uninformed speculation based on statements by participants cannot be used in this Circuit to undermine the legitimate interest of the government in protecting against disclosure of the precise international security problem which plaintiff seeks to have revealed. Cf. Schmerler v. FBI, 900 F.2d 333, 336 (D.C.Cir.1990).
*803 Plaintiff's attack on the coding technique used for the Vaughn index as boiler plate and inadequate is denied. In general, the government's affidavits are sufficiently specific to support the exemptions claimed. Keys v. Department of Justice, 830 F.2d 337, 347-48 (D.C.Cir.1987). Except for the limited portions described below, the Court finds that the government has properly redacted the released documents according to the exemptions claimed and described in the affidavits.
All of the unclassified documents contain "law enforcement records or information ... [that] could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." 5 U.S.C. § 552(b) (7) (C). The FBI invoked Exemption (b) (7) (C) to withhold names of FBI agents and support personnel (Auerswald Declaration, ¶ 22), names or other identifiers of third parties who were mentioned in the investigative files (id., ¶¶ 23-24), and names or identifiers of persons interviewed under implied or express assurances of confidentiality (id., ¶ 25). Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749, 771-75, 109 S. Ct. 1468, 1480-82, 103 L. Ed. 2d 774 (1989); Senate of Puerto Rico v. Department of Justice, 823 F.2d 574, 588 (D.C.Cir.1987); Lesar v. Department of Justice, 636 F.2d 472, 487 (D.C.Cir. 1980).
The FBI also relies heavily on Exemption (b) (7) (D), which permits an agency to withhold information that could identify confidential sources. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b) (7) (D); Auerswald Declaration, ¶¶ 26-29. Parker v. Department of Justice, 934 F.2d 375, 378 (D.C.Cir.1991); King v. Department of Justice, 830 F.2d 210, 235-36 (D.C.Cir. 1987).
The third exemption invoked by the FBI is Exemption (b) (2), which protects information related solely to internal personnel rules and agency practices. While this exemption is meant to be interpreted narrowly, to exempt routine "housekeeping" matters not normally of substantial public interest, Vaughn v. Rosen, 523 F.2d 1136, 1141 (D.C.Cir.1975), plaintiff is nonetheless not entitled to disclosure of such administrative markings. Founding Church of Scientology v. Smith, 721 F.2d 828, 829-30 (D.C.Cir.1983). This exemption does not, however, protect substantive information, such as investigative results, which are covered by other exemptions not claimed by the FBI in withholding these documents.
The Court sustains most of the government's claims after balancing the plaintiff's rights against the public interest. There is no basis for disclosure of this limited security matter when disclosure could threaten or interfere with ongoing security initiatives. It does not follow, as plaintiff suggests, that private information becomes public whenever an individual's activities in various respects have become unduly publicized and his or her involvement in the general area of the FOIA demand is well known. In such instances, the publicity minimizes pressure to force disclosure of any further information clearly entitled to privacy protection. Moreover, there can be no longer any doubt that absent extraordinary circumstances every possible protection must be given to the privacy of FBI agents and supporting personnel, particularly here where the requestor reveals animus and has herself been under inquiry.
The following portions of the withheld documents, however, do not fall within these valid exemptions and must be disclosed to the plaintiff forthwith:
Document No. 2:
Page One, "per Zuschlag." This German word for "attachment" or "supplement" was misidentified as a name and cannot be protected under Exemption (b) (7) (C).
Page Three, the paragraph beginning "During a ..." and ending on Page Four, "... assassination attempt." This paragraph does not reveal any names or confidential sources.
Document No. 4:
Page Two, the paragraph beginning "During a ..." and ending on Page Four, "... assassination attempt," which is identical to the paragraph described in Document No. 2, above.
*804 Document No. 5:
Page Two, from "As has been ..." through "... consular official," with the names and identities of private persons (except for Michelle [sic] Steinberg) and confidential sources to remain redacted. While the identities of persons and sources described in this paragraph may be withheld, the event described does not fall within any of the claimed exemptions.
Document No. 10:
Page Two, from "As has been ..." through "... consular official," with names and identities of private persons and confidential sources to remain redacted, as noted for Document No. 5, above, which contains the same paragraph.
The Court is convinced that the FBI has met its search obligations and is entitled to the exemptions claimed, with the exceptions noted above. Accordingly, defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part.
NOTES
[1] The Court is returning these unredacted copies to defense counsel.
[2] Boston Field Office of the FBI and the Executive Office of United States Attorneys ("EOUSA").
